MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411167156 · doi:10.1016/s2352-4642(25)00139-7

Timing of repeat epinephrine to inform paediatric anaphylaxis observation periods: a retrospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4411167156 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy E. Dribin, Hugh A. Sampson, Yin Zhang, Stephanie Boyd, Nanhua Zhang, Kenneth A. Michelson, Mark I. Neuman, David C. Brousseau, Rakesh D. Mistry, Stephen B. Freedman, Paul L. Aronson, Kelly R. Bergmann, Brittany Boswell, Sri S. Chinta, Wee-Jhong Chua, Ari Cohen, Joanna S. Cohen, Alicia Daggett, Justin Davis, Julia Freeman, Kajal Khanna, Curtis Knoles, Karen Y. Kwan, Chari Larsen, Ju‐Hee Lee, Tamar R. Lubell, Ashley M. Metcalf, Matthew M. Moake, Jo-Ann Nesiama, Thuy L. Ngo, Christian D. Pulcini, Christopher J. Russo, Nidhi Singh, Geetanjali Srivastava, Jonathan Strutt, Vandana Thapar, Craig Vander Wyst, Patrick S. Walsh, Yonatan Wolnerman, David Schnadower

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineRetrospective cohort studyEpinephrineEmergency medicineDiscontinuationAnaphylaxisMedical recordDosingIncidence (geometry)Hazard ratioCohortPediatricsConfidence intervalAnesthesiaInternal medicineAllergy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent HealthSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207