Clinical Presentation, Triggers, Comorbidities, and Management of Anaphylaxis in the Elderly: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening, systemic allergic reaction. This study aimed to compare anaphylactic triggers, clinical presentation, and management between elderly (≥65 years old) and non-elderly adults. METHODS: Data from the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE) from April 2011 to May 2024 were collected, spanning five emergency departments and one emergency medical service across three Canadian provinces. Demographics, trigger, symptom severity, comorbidities, and medication use were assessed. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables between elderly and non-elderly adults, whereas non-parametric t tests were used for numerical variables. RESULTS: Among 1,135 anaphylaxis cases, 90 (7.9%) involved elderly patients. Drug and venom anaphylaxis triggers were more prevalent (p < 0.01) in elderly adults compared to non-elderly adults, while food allergies were less common. Elderly patients were more likely to experience anaphylaxis at home (p < 0.01) and had a higher intensive care unit admission rate (p = 0.04). Use of epinephrine was less frequent in elderly patients (30.0%). CONCLUSION: Compared to younger adults, elderly patients exhibit distinct anaphylactic triggers and have increased ICU admission and lower epinephrine use. Our findings highlight the need for improved recognition, treatment adherence, and tailored management strategies in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".