An Evaluation of Food Allergy Management Practices in a Sample of Canadian and American Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children, including the estimated 7% with food allergy, spend most of their waking hours in school. Variations in school-based food allergy (FA) practices exist. We aimed to examine differences in FA management practices across schools in Canada and the United States (US). Methods: Parents of children with Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated FA were recruited through social media to complete a survey evaluating the schools’ stock epinephrine, epinephrine storage locations, school type, and location. Data were described, analyzed using logistic and linear regressions, and then reported as odds ratios (ORs) and standardized coefficients (b), respectively, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) and p < 0.05. This study was approved by the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board. Results: Overall, 177 participants (14% [26/177] Canada, 86% [151/177] US) were included. Children were, on average, 4.92 ± 3.12 years and were commonly but not mutually exclusively allergic to tree nuts (50% Canada; 40% US) and peanuts (33% Canada; 29% US). Compared to US parents, Canadian parents were more likely to report epinephrine self-carriage by their children (OR = 4.58; 95%CI = 1.67–12.59). Parents with children age > 5 years were more likely to report epinephrine self-carriage by their children (OR = 3.70; 95%CI = 1.38–9.93) but less likely to report that their children’s school had an allergen-friendly zone (OR = 0.25; 95%CI = 0.06–0.99). Compared to US parents, Canadian parents were more likely to report their child’s school had anaphylaxis management policies (OR = 8.98; 95%CI = 1.11–72.42). Conclusions: Significant in-school FA management differences exist between countries. These findings stress the need for consistent policies and practices to ensure effective care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".