Reducing harm from panel skin prick testing: A practical guide for paediatricians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case Scenario: A 12-month-old child, who was first introduced to egg at 6 months of age and consumed it several times per week, was referred to an allergy clinic following a positive skin prick test (SPT) (“allergy test”) performed by a referring general paediatrician. The test had been performed as part of a broad food panel of testing in response to mild eczema. As a result of the test results, in the absence of any clinical reaction to egg or other foods, the physician advised strict avoidance of egg, peanut, and dairy until an allergist could be consulted. Seven months later, when the child was seen by an allergist, skin testing revealed a large wheal to egg, with egg allergy confirmed via graded provocation challenge. This egg allergy might have been prevented if the food not been removed from the diet following panel skin testing. This true case highlights the potential harms of panel food allergy skin testing when conducted without appropriate clinical justification.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.015 |
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".