Pollen food allergy syndrome (PFAS) in Southeastern Ontario: Determining prevalence and exploring risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pollen Food Allergy Syndrome (PFAS) is a complex condition in pollen-allergic individuals caused by cross-reactivity with pollen proteins and food antigens; typically characterized by adverse oral reactions to fresh fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Interestingly, not all pollen-allergic individuals develop PFAS. In Canada, the prevalence of PFAS remains to be elucidated and risk factors are yet to be established. Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of PFAS in a Canadian pollen-allergic population and explore any potential predictive factors of PFAS. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a pollen-allergic population predominantly located in Southeastern Ontario. The study involved an online self-reported survey regarding food allergy and seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) symptoms and severity. Survey responses were matched to on-file pollen skin prick tests (SPT) for birch, timothy grass, and ragweed to confirm SAR status. These pollens are the most prevalent allergy-inducing pollens of each allergy season and thus, representative of each local allergy season. Statistical analyses were performed on SPSS. Results: Of 194 participants with confirmed SAR, 158 (81.4%) were allergic to timothy grass,135 (69.6%) to ragweed, and 100 (51.5%) to birch. Among these pollen-allergic participants, 73 (37.6%) reported food allergies, of which 22 (11.3%) were determined to have highly probable PFAS. The most reported PFAS food triggers were kiwi (n=6, 27.3%), pineapple (n=6, 27.3%), peach (n=5, 22.8%), strawberry (n=5, 22.8%), and banana (n=418.2%). The mean age of participants with PFAS was 42.1 years (SEM 2.6) and those without was 43.7 years (SEM 0.9) (p=0.573). Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) for each season were not significant between participants with PFAS and without [spring TNSS, p=0.637; summer TNSS, p=0.915; fall TNSS, p=0.752]. Male sex [odds ratio (OR), 1.03, p=0.950], urban areas [OR, 0.53; p=0.199], and pollen sensitization [p=0.793] were all found not to be significant risk factors for PFAS. Conclusion: The prevalence of PFAS in this Canadian pollen-allergic cohort was found to be 11.3%. Of the PFAS risk factors explored—age, sex, area, pollen sensitization, and SAR symptom scores—none were statistically significant. Results suggest the need to explore biologic outcomes to assess PFAS risk further.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".