Cherkaoui et al. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol (2015) 11:39 DOI 10.1186/s13223-015-0103-z
Bibliographic record
Abstract
product for heated-milk food challenge? Sabrine Cherkaoui1, Philippe Bégin1,2, Louis Paradis1,2, Jean Paradis1,2 and Anne Des Roches2* Background: Previous studies have reported that up to 75 % of milk allergic subjects tolerate heated milk products. However, the food used for heated milk challenge is often prepared in a non-standardized manner by the parents at home, which may prove inconvenient and even sometimes raise concerns with regards to test validity. Instant skim milk powder is made by a food process that involves heating skim milk to up to 250 °C (390 °F) for up to 30 min which ought to be sufficient to denature thermo-labile proteins. Objective: To appraise the use of instant skim milk for the purpose of heated milk food challenge. Methods: We reviewed all oral food challenges to instant skim milk powder performed at Sainte-Justine University Hospital Center in Montreal, Canada between November 2008 and January 2013 (cumulative dose of 4 g proteins). Results: During the study period, 39 children underwent an open food challenge to instant skim milk powder. Thirty patients (76.9 %) passed the challenge without clinical reaction, of which 26 successfully introduced heated milk products at home. The remaining four children reported intermittent mild reactions to specific forms of heated milk goods while they tolerated others. Subjects ’ clinical and paraclinical characteristics were comparable to previous cohorts evaluating baked milk challenge, which reported similar rates of heated milk positive challenges, ranging from 17 to 28 %. Conclusion: Challenge with instant skim milk powder could be a safe, convenient and easily standardizable alterna-tive to home baked food for heated milk challenge. Further controlled studies are needed before this can be imple-mented to practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
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".