The Prevalence of Sensitization to Food Allergens from the Group of “Big Eight” in Children with Atopic Phenotype: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Food allergy (FA) is a common chronic disease. There are no official data on the prevalence of FA in Russia. The results of only a few Russian studies of FA and anaphylaxis in children have been published. The aim of the study is to study the prevalence of sensitization to food allergens from the group of “big eight” in children with atopic phenotype living in the Moscow agglomeration. Methods. The cross-sectional study included children aged 0 to 17 years with complaints of seasonal manifestations of allergies / diagnosed with seasonal allergic rhinitis (pollinosis); with complaints of allergic reactions when eating any food; with complaints of atopic dermatitis. The determination of sensitization to allergens was carried out using ImmunoCAP technology, ImmunoCAP ISAC / ALEX2 allergy chips. Results. 240 children were included in the study. Sensitization to extracts of food allergens of the “big eight”, detected by the ImmunoCAP monoplex method, was determined in 1.5 (for fish) — 5 (for wheat) several times more often than with multiplex allergodiagnostics. In molecular allergodiagnosis, sensitization to hazelnut allergens was found in 57%, peanuts — in 47%, soy — in 39%, walnut — in 24%, chicken egg — in 18%, cow’s milk — in 12%, fish — in 9.7%, cashews — in 7.6%, shrimp — in 6.3%, wheat — in 4.6% of children. The frequency of food allergy symptoms, based on the assessment of the patients’ parents, was up to 7 times higher than the detected frequency of sensitization, accompanied by complaints of symptoms when eating the appropriate foods. Among the products causing symptoms in such patients, hazelnuts, cow’s milk, chicken egg and peanuts were in the lead. Conclusion. More than half of Russian children are sensitized to the allergens of the “big eight”, while clinically significant sensitization was noted 2 times less often. Sensitization to the allergen components of the PR-10 group of hazelnuts, peanuts and soybeans was most often detected. The frequency of FA diagnosed by a doctor is significantly lower than the frequency of the disease detected by the results of a survey of patients’ parents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".