Evaluating the efficacy of a novel home-based oral food challenge protocol for pediatric food protein induced enterocolitis syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral food challenges (OFCs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), a non-immunoglobulin E mediated gastrointestinal food allergy characterized by delayed, repetitive vomiting, lethargy, and sometimes diarrhea, primarily affecting infants and young children. Our modified approach to OFCs involves smaller, gradually increased doses to mitigate the risk of severe reactions. We aimed to measure the successful completion of this OFC protocol. METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, patients age < 18 years, who had 1 + episode of acute FPIES between 2015 and 2023 were identified using an allergy clinic database. Patients underwent OFCs with home up dosing every 2-4 weeks. Steps included 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of the final serving amount. The primary outcome was successful completion, i.e. absence of severe reactions during the OFC protocol and 1 year after. Data were analysed using logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results were adjusted for multiple allergic comorbidities, age of FPIES onset, and biological sex. RESULTS: Among 47 patients who began the OFC protocol, 38 (80.85%) completed it without significant reactions. Of the 9 (19.14%) who did not complete the protocol, 4 (44.4%) paused due to reactions, and 5 (55.6%) paused due to non-FPIES symptoms. The 4 reactors paused due to mild-to-moderate reactions; there were no severe reactions during the protocol. There were no significant associations identified between OFC completion and severity of symptoms (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.24-4.71; p = 0.94); age at onset of symptoms (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.02; p = 0.58); or age of starting OFC (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98-1.02; p = 0.90). Patients who reacted to milk tended to be less likely to complete the protocol than those reacting to other foods (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.07-1.06; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the potential for a home-based gradual approach to OFCs in FPIES, evidenced by a high completion rate and no severe reactions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".