In this work, we aimed at a kind of multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion (TF-MID) equation satisfying the Neumann boundary condition, with fractional orders αm(t) for m=1,2,⋯,P, and introduced a QSC-L1+ scheme by applying the quadratic spline collocation (QSC) method along the spatial direction and using the L1+ formula for the temporal direction. This new scheme was shown to be unconditionally stable and convergent with the accuracy O(τmin{3−α∗−α(0), 2}+Δx2+Δy2), where Δx, Δy, and τ denoted the space-time mesh sizes. α∗ was the maximum of αm(t) over the time interval, and α(0) was the maximum of αm(0) in all values of m. The QSC-L1+ scheme, under certain appropriate conditions on αm(t), is capable of attaining a second order convergence in time, even on a uniform space-time grid. Additionally, we also implemented a fast computation approach which leveraged the exponential-sum-approximation technique to increase the computational efficiency. A numerical example with different fractional orders was attached to confirm the theoretical findings.
Citation: Jun Liu, Yue Liu, Xiaoge Yu, Xiao Ye. An efficient numerical method based on QSC for multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equation with Neumann boundary condition[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 642-666. doi: 10.3934/era.2025030
| [1] | Yongzhong Hu . An application of the Baker method to a new conjecture on exponential Diophantine equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(3): 1618-1623. doi: 10.3934/era.2024073 |
| [2] | Gezi Chong, Jianxia He . On exponential decay properties of solutions of the (3 + 1)-dimensional modified Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(1): 447-470. doi: 10.3934/era.2025022 |
| [3] | Zhefeng Xu, Xiaoying Liu, Luyao Chen . Hybrid mean value involving some two-term exponential sums and fourth Gauss sums. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(3): 1510-1522. doi: 10.3934/era.2025071 |
| [4] | Shuguan Ji, Yanshuo Li . Quasi-periodic solutions for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with nonlocal diffusion. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7182-7194. doi: 10.3934/era.2023363 |
| [5] | Jun Wang, Yanni Zhu, Kun Wang . Existence and asymptotical behavior of the ground state solution for the Choquard equation on lattice graphs. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 812-839. doi: 10.3934/era.2023041 |
| [6] | Jun Liu, Yue Liu, Xiaoge Yu, Xiao Ye . An efficient numerical method based on QSC for multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equation with Neumann boundary condition. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 642-666. doi: 10.3934/era.2025030 |
| [7] | Hye Jeang Hwang, Gwang Hui Kim . Superstability of the $ p $-power-radical functional equation related to sine function equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(10): 6347-6362. doi: 10.3934/era.2023321 |
| [8] | Merve Kara . Investigation of the global dynamics of two exponential-form difference equations systems. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(11): 6697-6724. doi: 10.3934/era.2023338 |
| [9] | Zayd Hajjej . Asymptotic stability for solutions of a coupled system of quasi-linear viscoelastic Kirchhoff plate equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(6): 3471-3494. doi: 10.3934/era.2023176 |
| [10] | E. A. Abdel-Rehim . The time evolution of the large exponential and power population growth and their relation to the discrete linear birth-death process. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2487-2509. doi: 10.3934/era.2022127 |
In this work, we aimed at a kind of multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion (TF-MID) equation satisfying the Neumann boundary condition, with fractional orders αm(t) for m=1,2,⋯,P, and introduced a QSC-L1+ scheme by applying the quadratic spline collocation (QSC) method along the spatial direction and using the L1+ formula for the temporal direction. This new scheme was shown to be unconditionally stable and convergent with the accuracy O(τmin{3−α∗−α(0), 2}+Δx2+Δy2), where Δx, Δy, and τ denoted the space-time mesh sizes. α∗ was the maximum of αm(t) over the time interval, and α(0) was the maximum of αm(0) in all values of m. The QSC-L1+ scheme, under certain appropriate conditions on αm(t), is capable of attaining a second order convergence in time, even on a uniform space-time grid. Additionally, we also implemented a fast computation approach which leveraged the exponential-sum-approximation technique to increase the computational efficiency. A numerical example with different fractional orders was attached to confirm the theoretical findings.
Clemens von Pirquet originally defined the term Allergy as meaning the increased capacity of the body to react to a foreign substance. Today the term allergy means oversensitivity to a foreign substance that is normally harmless [1]. A major safety concern is food allergy [2]. Food allergy affects many millions of peoples and is responsible for substantial morbidity and reduced quality of life in patients, families and communities [3]. To date, the focus of the adult food allergy examination has been on a limited number of specific allergens [4]. In recent decades, it is generally accepted that the prevalence of food allergy has increased, especially in westernized countries [5].
The incidence of food allergies is increasing globally [6]. Recent studies show that in the Middle East Region, allergic diseases are growing strongly [7]. The prevalence of clinically identified food allergy ranges widely from 1% to 13% [8]. Food allergy (FA) prevalence varies in different countries, as estimates are influenced by several factors; such as age, race, dietary intake frequency, and cooking method [9]. Food allergy, which now affects up to 8% of children and 5% of adults in Westernized countries, has become a public health priority for developing therapies for this potentially life-threatening condition [10].
Food allergies are caused to exposure to certain life-threatening antigens by IgE- or cell-mediated humoral immune response. Such allergies are one of the main food safety issues in developed countries, affecting 1–10 percent of the global population, with a higher incidence in children [11]. Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is a leading cause of anaphylaxis, and so it is important to refer to an allergist for prompt and effective diagnosis and care [12]. Type I hypersensitivity responses caused by the cross-linking of IgE attached to the surface of mast cells and basophils underlie adverse food allergy reactions [13]. Important evidence indicates the key roles that mast cells, IgE and TH2 cytokines play in mediating food allergy [14]. Despite the vast number of foods that trigger immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reactions, most prevalence studies have concentrated on the most common allergenic foods, i.e. cow's milk, hen's egg, peanut, tree nut, wheat, soy, fish and shellfish [15].
A total of 170 blood samples were collected from patients suffering from allergy from an unknown source. All serum samples were subjected for determination of the presence of food allergy by varieties of foods. They visited the private clinical sectors of Erbil Province, Kurdistan Region, Iraq between 2018 to 2020. All blood samples collected inside the (10 mL) gel tube, it contains clotting activators, after clotting, centrifuged them for 15 min at 5000 round per minute (RPM). Blood serums have been subjected to food allergy analysis regarding the manufactures instructions of the test. Blood samples were sorted in the different aged groups (13–30 and 31–52 years) and also classifying them regarding to the genders in males and females.
Clarifications of food allergies can carry out by using various food allergy profiles. Human IgE antibodies against the most frequent food allergens in serum, can determine semi-quantitatively or qualitatively based on the test system. Country-specific food allergy profiles are available which have been developed with about regional eating habits. The EUROLINE test kit provides semi-quantitative in vitro determination of allergen-specific (sIgE) in serum, contributing to the diagnosis of allergies. The test is multipara meter assay containing optimized combinations of relevant allergens, enabling the analysis of sIgE against these different allergens in one test. In this study, we used the country-specific food allergy profile “Food Iraq 1” (Catalog no: DP 3436-160-1 E, IVD-approved, and CE-certified EUROLINE immunoblot) test kit contains a test strip with 36 different allergens. All serum samples have been subjected for determinations of food allergies according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, test strips coated with 36 food allergens: egg white (f1), egg yolk (f75), cow's milk (f2), nBos d8-casein (f78), wheat flour (f4), rye flour (f5), rice (f9), grain mix 2 (fs13), sesame (f10), peanut (f13), soybean (f14), hazelnut (f17), almond (f20), pistachio (f144), walnut (f256), gluten (f79), strawberry (f44), apple (f49), blue grape (f50), kiwi (f84), banana (f92), mango (f93), peach (f95), cherry (f97), honeydew melon (f87), citrus mix 2 (fs32), tomato (f25), potato (f35), bell pepper (f46), garlic (f47), celery (f85), eggplant (f262), chicken (f83), meat mix 5 (fs28), shrimp/prawn (f24) and seafood mix 3 (fs12). In addition to food allergens, strip coated with a cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant (CCD) and an indicator band. Test strips are first moistened with 1.0 mL of working strength universal buffer for 5 min, then aspirate off all liquid. Directly incubated with 400 µL of undiluted patient serum to bind s-IgE antibodies if present. If samples contain specific antibodies of class IgE, they will bind to the allergens coated on the strip. Subsequently, the bound s-IgE antibodies were detected using an enzyme-linked anti-human IgE catalyzing a color reaction. After stopping the reaction by using deionized or distilled water, place the incubated test strip onto the adhesive foil of the green work protocol (created in the EUROLINE scan program) using a pair of tweezers. The position of the test strips can be corrected while they are wet. As soon as all test strips have been placed onto the protocol, they should be pressed hard using filter paper and left to air dry. The drying process should take place without any direct light, in a room as dark as possible. After they have dried, the test strip will be stuck to the adhesive foil. Incubated strips that are still moist show a background coloring that disappears when they are completely dry. Therefore the evaluation of the strips only takes place after strips have completely dried. Class of antibodies can be classified into the following types depending on the concentration range and their explanation (Table 1).
| Class | Concentration (Ku/I) | Explanation |
| 0 | <0.35 | No specific antibodies detected |
| 1 | 0.35 ≤ sIgE < 0.7 | Very weak antibody detection |
| 2 | 0.7 ≤ sIgE < 3.5 | Weak antibody detection |
| 3 | 3.5 ≤ sIgE < 17.5 | Definite antibody detection |
| 4 | 17.5 ≤ sIgE < 50 | Strong antibody detection |
| 5 | 50 ≤ sIgE < 100 | Very high antibody titer |
| 6 | ≥100 | Very high antibody titer |
DownLoad:
CSV
Patients' rights and ethic approval statement explaining: Ethical approval for this research has not been obtained from the institutional review board or committee because all blood samples have been collected from a private clinical diagnostic laboratory, which officially has been recognized by the ministry of health Kurdistan Regional government of Iraq. Ministry of health instructions for Ethical criteria and patient's rights mandatory should take into consideration at all diagnostic laboratories in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Contentment for blood drawing orally earned from all patients after proceeding of all ethical instructions. Patients' and clients' information (name, age, and gender) electronically submitted to the lab database.
The chi-square was applied to examine the relationship between the prevalence of food allergy and the types of antibodies detection in allergic patients from different genders and aged groups. P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
The present study illustrated that the food allergy prevalence (measured by specific IgE concentration) in males is 10% and 12.35% in females. Food allergy prevalence was 12.35% among individuals age 13–30 years and 10% among 31–52 years. Table 2 clarifying the prevalence of food allergy in between different aged groups with male and female.
| N (%) positive | N (%) negative | Total (%) | ||
| Age groups (years) | 13–30 | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) |
| 31–52 | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) | |
| Gender | Male | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) |
| Female | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) |
DownLoad:
CSV
Prevalence of positive results for 36 food allergens items in all 170 screened samples illustrated in Table 3, regarding to aged groups and genders.
| Food allergy | Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
||||
| Male | Female | Male | Female | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | |
| Egg white | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Egg yolk | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Cow's milk | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| nBos d8-casein | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Wheat flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Rye flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 4 (4.25) |
| Rice (f9) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Grain mix | 76 | 94 | 7 (9.21) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Sesame | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 6 (6.38) |
| Soybean | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 6 (7.89) | 2 (2.12) |
| Gluten | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Hazelnut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Almond | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 1 (1.06) |
| Walnut | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Pistachio | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Peanut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 3 (3.19) |
| Strawberry | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) |
| Apple | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 1 (1.06) |
| Blue grape | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) |
| Kiwi | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 5 (5.31) |
| Banana | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Mango | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Peach | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Cherry | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 0 (0) |
| Honeydew melon | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Citrus mix | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Bell pepper | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Eggplant | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Tomato | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Potato | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) |
| Garlic | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 4 (4.25) |
| Celery | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Chicken | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 7 (7.44) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Meat mix | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Shrimp/prawn | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 5 (5.31) |
| Seafood mix | 76 | 94 | 10 (13.15) | 12 (12.76) | 76 | 94 | 11 (14.47) | 11 (11.70) |
DownLoad:
CSV
Prevalence percentage for all allergens items have been checked in all positive cases, regarding to the aged groups and gender (Table 4).
| Item number | Food allergy | Age groups |
Gender |
||
| 13–30 | 31–52 | Male | Female | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 6 | Rye flour | 1 (4.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 7 | Rice (f9) | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 8 | Grain mix | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 7 (41.17) | 4 (19.04) |
| 9 | Sesame | 4 (19.04) | 6 (35.29) | 5 (29.41) | 5 (23.80) |
| 10 | Soybean | 6 (28.57) | 2 (11.76) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (14.28) |
| 11 | Gluten | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 13 | Almond | 4 (19.04) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 14 | Walnut | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 15 | Pistachio | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 16 | Peanut | 4 (19.04) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 17 | Strawberry | 1 (4.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 18 | Apple | 5 (23.80) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 19 | Blue grape | 1 (4.76) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 0 (0) |
| 20 | Kiwi | 1 (4.76) | 5 (29.41) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 21 | Banana | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 2 (11.76) | 0 (0) |
| 22 | Mango | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 23 | Peach | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 24 | Cherry | 4 (19.04) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (4.76) |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 28 | Eggplant | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 29 | Tomato | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 30 | Potato | 3 (14.28) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (9.52) |
| 31 | Garlic | 4 (19.04) | 4 (23.52) | 3 (17.64) | 5 (23.80) |
| 32 | Celery | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 33 | Chicken | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 4 (23.52) | 7 (33.3) |
| 34 | Meat mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 2 (9.52) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 11 (52.38) | 11 (64.70) | 10 (58.82) | 12 (57.14) |
| P value | 0.08 | 0.0006 | 0.14 | 0.002 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
Allergic response class and response strength to all food allergen products have been tested in all positive cases. The prevalence percentage of food allergen products with class and severity of allergic reaction is shown in Table 5.
| Number | Food allergen | No specific antibodie detected (class 0) |
Very weak antibody detection (class 1) |
Weak antibody detection (class 2) |
Definite antibody detection (class 3) |
Strong antibody detection (class 4) |
Very high antibody titer (class 5) |
Total |
|||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 32 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 6 | Rye flour | 33 | 86.84 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 7 | Rice | 32 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 8 | Grain mix | 27 | 71.05 | 6 | 15.78 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 9 | Sesame | 28 | 73.68 | 6 | 15.78 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 10 | Soybean | 30 | 78.94 | 3 | 7.89 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 11 | Gluten | 35 | 92.10 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 13 | Almond | 33 | 86.84 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 14 | Walnut | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 15 | Pistachio | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 16 | Peanut | 31 | 81.57 | 5 | 13.15 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 17 | Strawberry | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 18 | Apple | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 19 | Blue grape | 37 | 97.36 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 20 | Kiwi | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 21 | Banana | 36 | 94.73 | 2 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 22 | Mango | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 23 | Peach | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 24 | Cherry | 34 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 36 | 94.73 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 28 | Eggplant | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 29 | Tomato | 34 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 30 | Potato | 33 | 86.84 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 31 | Garlic | 30 | 78.94 | 2 | 5.26 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 32 | Celery | 35 | 92.10 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 33 | Chicken | 27 | 71.05 | 1 | 7.89 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 34 | Meat mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 31 | 81.57 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 16 | 42.10 | 4 | 10.52 | 5 | 13.15 | 10 | 26.31 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| P value | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.00001 | 0.006 | 0.1 | - | - | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
This research was carried out to determine the prevalence of food allergy in the Erbil Province Kurdistan Region of Iraq. We were unable to find any published data about prevalence food allergy in Erbil. Total 94 males (55.29%) and 76 females (44.70%) were studied and their ages range were in between 13 to 52 years old and mean of SD 32.57 ± 11.36 years. In the Middle East, studies about food allergy prevalence are scarce. A recent study done in the United Arab Emirates showed that the most common food allergens were seafood and nuts [16]. Another study showed that the highest frequency of food specific IgE is to hazelnuts and peanuts, with a marked increase in reactions to hazelnut [17].
Most sensitivities to food allergens in males observed in these food items respectively, seafood: 10 (13.15%), grain mix: 7 (9.21%), sesame and soybean: 5 (6.57%) and followed by chicken, kiwi, and egg white: 4 (5.26%). But in females most sensitivity to food allergens were observed in seafood: 12 (12.76%), chicken: 7 (7.44%), garlic and sesame: 5 (5.31%) respectively. Also, negative results observed for allergic response among females for each one of the following items: almond, blue grape, banana, and celery. Among the two aged groups, seafood was the most prevalent food allergen: 11 (14.47%) in both aged groups respectively (Table 2). The study proved that the eight most common food allergens are eggs, milk, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, crustacean shellfish and fish, all of them are frequently consumed in the US [18].
Prevalence of food allergy in asthmatic children under 18 years of age had significant association with gender, birth weight, history of other allergies, family history of allergy, type of coexistent allergy and age of initiation of symptoms, age of introduction of complementary feeding, consumption of cow milk before one year of age and also duration of breast feeding [19]. The prevalence of food allergy among adolescent age group has been confirmed to be comparatively low in Turkey. Peanuts and tree nuts were determined to be the most common causes of IgE-mediated food allergy [20].
Recent findings are informing changes to population health guidelines in developed countries, which have the potential to halt or reverse the increase in food allergy prevalence. By contrast, food allergy in the developing world remains understudied [21]. There were no statistically significant differences in median age, sex, family history of allergy, or history of allergic diseases and food reactions [22]. We separated the food allergen in allergic patients in too many classes: egg, milk, grain/cereal, nut, fruits, vegetables/green and meats/seafood. Among these classes, the most sensitive response in allergic patients observed to seafood which has a higher percentage: 22 (57.89%), then chicken: 11 (28.94%), shrimp/prawn 7: (18.42%) and meat mix: 3 (7.89%) respectively. Among fruit classes, the apple with 6 (15.78%) was more prevalence in allergic patients, as well as peanuts with 7 (18.42%) showed the greatest sensitivity in allergic patients rather than other nuts. Cereals in grain mix 2 with 11 (28.94%) are more recorded allergen among grains. Cow's milk with 3 (7.89%) and egg white with 6 (15.78%) were the most common allergens in milk and in egg groups (Table 3).
There are differences among allergic patients for types of food allergen according to genders and aged groups. The highest percentage of food allergens were in seafood mix (contains codfish, shrimp/prawn, blue mussel, tuna, salmon): 10 (58.82%), grain mix (contains wheat flour, oat flour, corn, sesame, buckwheat flour): 7 (41.17%), sesame and soybean: 5 (29.41%) in male groups. While in female group, the most food allergens were seafood mix, chicken, sesame, and garlic. Also statistically there is a significant relationship between food allergens in females and the p-value was 0.002, on the other hand statistically there are no significant relations for food allergens in males groups and the p-value was 0.14. Based on our results, in female group no positive results observed for the these items, hazelnut, garlic, and banana: 0 (0%) but in contrast for male group the was 3 (17.64%) for garlic and hazelnut respectively and 0 (0%) to the banana. There are many differences in the prevalence of food allergens in allergic patients based on the aged groups, for instance in allergic patients which their age were in between (31–52 years), no allergic responses have been detected against these items banana, cherry and honeydew melon. But some of these items mentioned above, give positive results 2 (9.52%), 4 (19.04%) and 2 (9.52%) respectively, in allergic patients which their ages range from (13–30 years). There are statically differences between these two groups, the p-value was 0.08 in 13–30 years which statically not significant, however, the p-value was 0.0006 in 31–52 years which statically significant (Table 4).
Allergy with banana has been identified (0.04% to 1.2%) in different studies all over the world. Rarely, anaphylaxis has been reported with banana, oral-cutaneous allergy with it mostly observed. Symptoms of systemic reactions such as skin involvement, hypotension, angioedema, respiratory arrest have been reported in patients with anaphylaxis [23]. Betv 2-specific IgE antibodies have been shown to recognize profilins in apple, banana, carrot, celery, cherry, hazelnut, pear, pineapple, potato and tomato. Patients with birch pollen allergy who exhibit IgE reactivity to birch-related allergens in foods frequently ignore clinical symptoms when eating certain foods [24]. In the absence of a cure for food allergy, prevalence will increase steadily even if incidence remains stable. If incidence also increases, then the rates of increase in prevalence will likely accelerate exponentially [25]. In a meta-analysis of 51 studies, self-reported allergy to milk, egg, peanut and seafood ranged from 3% to 35% [26].
In the serum of the majority of food allergy patients, specific IgE antibodies against nuts (f13, f17), soybean (f14), cows' milk (f2) and especially casein (f78) were dominant and reached to class (3–6), but the most often diagnosed allergic response was caused by potato (f35) (antibodies in 2–4 classes) [27]. Of all the different reactions induced by food allergens, the most frequent are hypersensitivity mediated by specific immunoglobulins E (IgE). In vitro biosensing of specific IgE levels is an alternative approach to invasive risky in vivo tests for diagnosing food allergy in humans [28]. Network analysis identified most associations between Early epitope-specific IgE with either early epitope-specific (IgEG4) or early epitope-specific (IgEIgD), indicating that IgE-secreting plasma cells could originate from either sequential isotype switch from antigen-experienced intermediate isotypes or directly from the IgD+ B cells [29].
The classes of antibodies detection vary among 36 different food allergens: no specific antibodies detected, very weak antibody detection, weak antibody detection, definite antibody detection strong antibody detection, very high antibody titer. The highest frequency of very high antibody titer was detected only in egg white, egg yolk, and seafood mix (2.63%). Also, the p-value was 0.1 and statistically was not significant. Out of 36 food allergens, only in 6 of them strong antibody has been detected. The highest rate of strong antibody has been found in chicken (7.89%) rather than 5 remained food allergens. Statistically, there was a strong and significant relationship observed between food allergen and classes of antibody detection, the p-value was 0.006. Very weak antibody detection was observed in most food allergen. No allergic reactions recorded for only blue grape among all other allergens. Rye flour, grain mix, sesame, walnut, peanut, kiwi, shrimp/prawn, and seafood mix were showed the highest frequency of very weak antibodies and statistically not significant was observed, the p-value was 0.7. Also for most of the food allergens, weak antibodies were seen except for egg yolk, gluten, blue grape, banana, and meat mix, as well as there no relationship between food allergens and antibodies detection with class 2 and the value was 0.7. Definite antibodies were detected in certain food allergens and the p-value was 0.00001. The association between allergic patients was statistically strong with a food allergen. Among the 36 allergic foods, a larger number of antibodies are found in the seafood mix (Table 5).
Our work represents the first prevalence and detection study for the 36 food allergens in different genders and aged groups in Erbil province, among allergic patients. The highest prevalence of food allergy observed in females in comparison with the male, as well as the highest frequency of food allergy seen among the 13–30 years allergic patients in comparison with 31–52 years.
| [1] |
B. B. Mandelbrot, The fractal geometry of nature, Am. J. Phys., 51 (1983), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.13295 doi: 10.1119/1.13295
|
| [2] |
S. L. Lu, F. J. Molz, G. J. Fix, Possible problems of scale dependency in applications of the three-dimensional fractional advection-dispersion equation to natural porous media, Water Resour. Res., 38 (2002), 1165. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000624 doi: 10.1029/2001wr000624
|
| [3] |
S. G. Samko, B. Ross, Integration and differentiation to a variable fractional-order, Integral Transform Spec. Funct., 1 (1993), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10652469308819027 doi: 10.1080/10652469308819027
|
| [4] |
Z. Li, H. Wang, R. Xiao, S. Yang, A variable-order fractional differential equation model of shape memory polymers, Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 102 (2017), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2017.04.042 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2017.04.042
|
| [5] |
H. G. Sun, W. Chen, Y. Q. Chen, Variable-order fractional differential operators in anomalous diffusion modeling, Physica A, 388 (2009), 4586–4592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2009.07.024 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2009.07.024
|
| [6] |
H. Sheng, H. G. Sun, C. Coopmans, Y. Q. Chen, G. W. Bohannan, A physical experimental study of variable-order fractional integrator and differentiator, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top., 193 (2011), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2011-01384-4 doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2011-01384-4
|
| [7] |
H. T. C. Pedro, M. H. Kobayashi, J. M. C. Pereira, C. F. M. Coimbra, Variable order modeling of diffusive-convective effects on the oscillatory flow past a sphere, J. Vib. Control, 14 (2008), 1659–1672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546307087397 doi: 10.1177/1077546307087397
|
| [8] |
H. Wang, X. C. Zheng, Wellposedness and regularity of the variable-order time-fractional diffusion equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 475 (2019), 1778–1802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.03.052 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.03.052
|
| [9] |
X. C. Zheng, H. Wang, Uniquely identifying the variable order of time-fractional partial differential equations on general multi-dimensional domains, Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng., 29 (2021), 1401–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/17415977.2020.1849182 doi: 10.1080/17415977.2020.1849182
|
| [10] |
W. P. Bu, A. G. Xiao, W. Zeng, Finite difference/finite element methods for distributed-order time fractional diffusion equations, J. Sci. Comput., 72 (2017), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0360-8 doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0360-8
|
| [11] |
J. Guo, D. Xu, W. L. Qiu, A finite difference scheme for the nonlinear time-fractional partial integro-differential equation, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 43 (2020), 3392–3412. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6128 doi: 10.1002/mma.6128
|
| [12] |
C. P. Xie, S. M. Fang, Finite difference scheme for time-space fractional diffusion equation with fractional boundary conditions, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 43 (2020), 3473–3487. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6132 doi: 10.1002/mma.6132
|
| [13] |
S. J. Cheng, N. Du, H. Wang, Z. W. Yang, Finite element approximations to Caputo-Hadamard time-fractional diffusion equation with application in parameter identification, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6090525 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6090525
|
| [14] |
W. Y. Kang, B. A. Egwu, Y. B. Yan, A. K. Pani, Galerkin finite element approximation of a stochastic semilinear fractional subdiffusion with fractionally integrated additive noise, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 42 (2022), 2301–2335. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drab035 doi: 10.1093/imanum/drab035
|
| [15] |
Z. G. Zhao, Y. Y. Zheng, P. Guo, A Galerkin finite element method for a class of time-space fractional differential equation with nonsmooth data, J. Sci. Comput., 70 (2017), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-015-0107-3 doi: 10.1007/s10915-015-0107-3
|
| [16] |
B. Bialecki, G. Fairweather, A. Karageorghis, J. Maack, A quadratic spline collocation method for the Dirichlet biharmonic problem, Numer. Algorithms, 83 (2020), 165–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-019-00676-z doi: 10.1007/s11075-019-00676-z
|
| [17] |
C. C. Christara, Quadratic spline collocation methods for elliptic partial differential equations, BIT Numer. Math., 34 (1994), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01935015 doi: 10.1007/bf01935015
|
| [18] |
J. Liu, C. Zhu, Y. P. Chen, H. F. Fu, A Crank-Nicolson ADI quadratic spline collocation method for two-dimensional Riemann-Liouville space-fractional diffusion equations, Appl. Numer. Math., 160 (2021), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2020.10.015 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2020.10.015
|
| [19] |
J. Liu, H. F. Fu, X. C. Chai, Y. N. Sun, H. Guo, Stability and convergence analysis of the quadratic spline collocation method for time-dependent fractional diffusion equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 346 (2019), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.10.046 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2018.10.046
|
| [20] |
Y. M. Lin, C. J. Xu, Finite difference/spectral approximations for the time-fractional diffusion equation, J. Comput. Phys., 225 (2007), 1533–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.001
|
| [21] |
Z. Z. Sun, X. N. Wu, A fully discrete difference scheme for a diffusion-wave system, Appl. Numer. Math., 56 (2006), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2005.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2005.03.003
|
| [22] |
A. A. Alikhanov, A new difference scheme for the time fractional diffusion euqation, J. Comput. Phys., 280 (2015), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.09.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.09.031
|
| [23] |
M. F. She, D. F. Li, H. W. Sun, A transformed L1 method for solving the multi-term time-fractional diffusion problem, Math. Comput. Simul., 193 (2022), 584–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2021.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2021.11.005
|
| [24] |
W. Q. Yuan, D. F. Li, C. J. Zhang, Linearized transformed L1 Galerkin FEMs with unconditional convergence for nonlinear time fractional Schr¨odinger equations, Numer. Math. Theory Methods Appl., 16 (2023), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.4208/nmtma.oa-2022-0087 doi: 10.4208/nmtma.oa-2022-0087
|
| [25] |
H. Chen, Y. Shi, J. W. Zhang, Y. M. Zhao, Sharp error estimate of a Gr¨unwald-Letnikov scheme for reaction-subdiffusion equations, Numer. Algoritms, 89 (2022), 1465–1477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-021-01161-2 doi: 10.1007/s11075-021-01161-2
|
| [26] |
B. Y. Zhou, X. L. Chen, D. F. Li, Nonuniform Alikhanov linearized Galerkin finite element methods for nonlinear time-fractional parabolic equations, J. Sci. Comput., 85 (2020), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-020-01350-6 doi: 10.1007/s10915-020-01350-6
|
| [27] |
J. C. Ren, H. L. Liao, J. W. Zhang, Z. M. Zhang, Sharp H1-norm error estimates of two time-stepping schemes for reaction-subdiffusion problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 389 (2021), 113352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2020.113352 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2020.113352
|
| [28] |
X. C. Zheng, H. Wang, Optimal-order error estimates of finite element approximations to variable-order time-fractional diffusion equations without regularity assumptions of the true solutions, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 41 (2021), 1522–1545. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/draa013 doi: 10.1093/imanum/draa013
|
| [29] |
R. L. Du, Z. Z. Sun, H. Wang, Temporal second-order finite difference schemes for variable-order time-fractional wave equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 60 (2022), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1137/19m1301230 doi: 10.1137/19m1301230
|
| [30] |
H. M. Zhang, F. W. Liu, P. Zhuang, I. Turner, V. Anh, Numerical analysis of a new space-time variable fractional order advection-dispersion equation, Appl. Math. Comput., 242 (2014), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.06.003
|
| [31] |
H. Liu, X. C. Zheng, H. F. Fu, Analysis of a multi-term variable-order time-fractional diffusion equation and its Galerkin finite element approximation, J. Comput. Math., 40 (2022), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.4208/jcm.2102-m2020-0211 doi: 10.4208/jcm.2102-m2020-0211
|
| [32] |
J. Liu, H. F. Fu, An efficient QSC approximation of variable-order time-fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equations with variably diffusive coefficients, J. Sci. Comput., 93 (2022), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-022-02007-2 doi: 10.1007/s10915-022-02007-2
|
| [33] |
B. Q. Ji, H. L. Liao, Y. Z. Gong, L. M. Zhang, Adaptive second-order Crank-Nicolson time stepping schemes for time-fractional molecular beam epitaxial growth models, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 42 (2020), B738–B760. https://doi.org/10.1137/19m1259675 doi: 10.1137/19m1259675
|
| [34] |
S. D. Jiang, J. W. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Z. M. Zhang, Fast evaluation of the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications to fractional diffusion equations, Commun. Comput. Phys., 21 (2017), 650–678. https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.oa-2016-0136 doi: 10.4208/cicp.oa-2016-0136
|
| [35] |
J. L. Zhang, Z. W. Fang, H. W. Sun, Exponential-sum-approximation technique for variable-order time-fractional diffusion equations, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 68 (2022), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-021-01528-7 doi: 10.1007/s12190-021-01528-7
|
| [36] |
J. L. Zhang, Z. W. Fang, H. W. Sun, Fast second-order evaluation for variable-order Caputo fractional derivative with applications to fractional sub-diffusion equations, Numer. Math. Theory Methods Appl., 15 (2022), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.4208/nmtma.oa-2021-0148 doi: 10.4208/nmtma.oa-2021-0148
|
| [37] |
X. C. Zheng, J Cheng, H. Wang, Uniqueness of determining the variable fractional order in variable-order time-fractional diffusion equations, Inverse Probl., 35 (2019), 125002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/ab3aa3 doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ab3aa3
|
| [38] | V. Thomˊee, Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems, Springer, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/bfb0071790 |
| [39] |
J. Y. Shen, F. H. Zeng, M. Stynes, Second-order error analysis of the averaged L1 scheme ¯L1 for time-fractional initial-value and subdiffusion problems, Sci. China Math., 67 (2024), 1641–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11425-022-2078-4 doi: 10.1007/s11425-022-2078-4
|
| [40] |
X. Ye, J. Liu, B. Y. Zhang, H. F. Fu, Y. Liu, High order numerical methods based on quadratic spline collocation method and averaged L1 scheme for the variable-order time fractional mobile/immobile diffusion equation, Comput. Math. Appl., 171 (2024), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2024.07.009 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2024.07.009
|
| [41] | A. Quarteroni, A. Valli, Numerical Approximation of Partial Differential Equations, Springer, 1994. |
| [42] |
A. K. A. Khalifa, J. C. Eilbeck, Collocation with quadratic and cubic splines, IMA J. Numer. Anal., 2 (1982), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/2.1.111 doi: 10.1093/imanum/2.1.111
|
| 1. | Tahir Mahmood, Muhammad Riaz, Anam Iqbal, Kabwe Mulenga, An improved statistical approach to compare means, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 4596, 10.3934/math.2023227 | |
| 2. | Cecilia Castro, Víctor Leiva, Maria do Carmo Lourenço-Gomes, Ana Paula Amorim, Advanced Mathematical Approaches in Psycholinguistic Data Analysis: A Methodological Insight, 2023, 7, 2504-3110, 670, 10.3390/fractalfract7090670 | |
| 3. | Gaozhen Wang, Wenxian Guo, Hongxiang Wang, Lintong Huang, Fengtian Hong, Yinchu Ma, Yajuan Ma, Handong Ye, Xiaohan Zhang, Jiangnan Yang, Assessment of Changes in River Flow and Ecohydrological Indicators From the Viewpoint of Changing Landscape Patterns in the Jialing River Basin, China, 2025, 18, 1936-0584, 10.1002/eco.70001 |
Jun Liu, Yue Liu, Xiaoge Yu, Xiao Ye. An efficient numerical method based on QSC for multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equation with Neumann boundary condition[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 642-666. doi: 10.3934/era.2025030
| Class | Concentration (Ku/I) | Explanation |
| 0 | <0.35 | No specific antibodies detected |
| 1 | 0.35 ≤ sIgE < 0.7 | Very weak antibody detection |
| 2 | 0.7 ≤ sIgE < 3.5 | Weak antibody detection |
| 3 | 3.5 ≤ sIgE < 17.5 | Definite antibody detection |
| 4 | 17.5 ≤ sIgE < 50 | Strong antibody detection |
| 5 | 50 ≤ sIgE < 100 | Very high antibody titer |
| 6 | ≥100 | Very high antibody titer |
DownLoad:
CSV
| N (%) positive | N (%) negative | Total (%) | ||
| Age groups (years) | 13–30 | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) |
| 31–52 | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) | |
| Gender | Male | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) |
| Female | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Food allergy | Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
||||
| Male | Female | Male | Female | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | |
| Egg white | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Egg yolk | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Cow's milk | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| nBos d8-casein | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Wheat flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Rye flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 4 (4.25) |
| Rice (f9) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Grain mix | 76 | 94 | 7 (9.21) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Sesame | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 6 (6.38) |
| Soybean | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 6 (7.89) | 2 (2.12) |
| Gluten | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Hazelnut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Almond | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 1 (1.06) |
| Walnut | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Pistachio | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Peanut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 3 (3.19) |
| Strawberry | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) |
| Apple | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 1 (1.06) |
| Blue grape | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) |
| Kiwi | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 5 (5.31) |
| Banana | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Mango | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Peach | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Cherry | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 0 (0) |
| Honeydew melon | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Citrus mix | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Bell pepper | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Eggplant | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Tomato | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Potato | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) |
| Garlic | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 4 (4.25) |
| Celery | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Chicken | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 7 (7.44) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Meat mix | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Shrimp/prawn | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 5 (5.31) |
| Seafood mix | 76 | 94 | 10 (13.15) | 12 (12.76) | 76 | 94 | 11 (14.47) | 11 (11.70) |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Item number | Food allergy | Age groups |
Gender |
||
| 13–30 | 31–52 | Male | Female | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 6 | Rye flour | 1 (4.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 7 | Rice (f9) | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 8 | Grain mix | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 7 (41.17) | 4 (19.04) |
| 9 | Sesame | 4 (19.04) | 6 (35.29) | 5 (29.41) | 5 (23.80) |
| 10 | Soybean | 6 (28.57) | 2 (11.76) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (14.28) |
| 11 | Gluten | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 13 | Almond | 4 (19.04) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 14 | Walnut | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 15 | Pistachio | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 16 | Peanut | 4 (19.04) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 17 | Strawberry | 1 (4.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 18 | Apple | 5 (23.80) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 19 | Blue grape | 1 (4.76) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 0 (0) |
| 20 | Kiwi | 1 (4.76) | 5 (29.41) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 21 | Banana | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 2 (11.76) | 0 (0) |
| 22 | Mango | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 23 | Peach | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 24 | Cherry | 4 (19.04) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (4.76) |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 28 | Eggplant | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 29 | Tomato | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 30 | Potato | 3 (14.28) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (9.52) |
| 31 | Garlic | 4 (19.04) | 4 (23.52) | 3 (17.64) | 5 (23.80) |
| 32 | Celery | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 33 | Chicken | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 4 (23.52) | 7 (33.3) |
| 34 | Meat mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 2 (9.52) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 11 (52.38) | 11 (64.70) | 10 (58.82) | 12 (57.14) |
| P value | 0.08 | 0.0006 | 0.14 | 0.002 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Number | Food allergen | No specific antibodie detected (class 0) |
Very weak antibody detection (class 1) |
Weak antibody detection (class 2) |
Definite antibody detection (class 3) |
Strong antibody detection (class 4) |
Very high antibody titer (class 5) |
Total |
|||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 32 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 6 | Rye flour | 33 | 86.84 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 7 | Rice | 32 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 8 | Grain mix | 27 | 71.05 | 6 | 15.78 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 9 | Sesame | 28 | 73.68 | 6 | 15.78 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 10 | Soybean | 30 | 78.94 | 3 | 7.89 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 11 | Gluten | 35 | 92.10 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 13 | Almond | 33 | 86.84 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 14 | Walnut | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 15 | Pistachio | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 16 | Peanut | 31 | 81.57 | 5 | 13.15 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 17 | Strawberry | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 18 | Apple | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 19 | Blue grape | 37 | 97.36 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 20 | Kiwi | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 21 | Banana | 36 | 94.73 | 2 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 22 | Mango | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 23 | Peach | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 24 | Cherry | 34 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 36 | 94.73 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 28 | Eggplant | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 29 | Tomato | 34 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 30 | Potato | 33 | 86.84 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 31 | Garlic | 30 | 78.94 | 2 | 5.26 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 32 | Celery | 35 | 92.10 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 33 | Chicken | 27 | 71.05 | 1 | 7.89 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 34 | Meat mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 31 | 81.57 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 16 | 42.10 | 4 | 10.52 | 5 | 13.15 | 10 | 26.31 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| P value | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.00001 | 0.006 | 0.1 | - | - | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Class | Concentration (Ku/I) | Explanation |
| 0 | <0.35 | No specific antibodies detected |
| 1 | 0.35 ≤ sIgE < 0.7 | Very weak antibody detection |
| 2 | 0.7 ≤ sIgE < 3.5 | Weak antibody detection |
| 3 | 3.5 ≤ sIgE < 17.5 | Definite antibody detection |
| 4 | 17.5 ≤ sIgE < 50 | Strong antibody detection |
| 5 | 50 ≤ sIgE < 100 | Very high antibody titer |
| 6 | ≥100 | Very high antibody titer |
| N (%) positive | N (%) negative | Total (%) | ||
| Age groups (years) | 13–30 | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) |
| 31–52 | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) | |
| Gender | Male | 17 (10) | 77 (45.29) | 94 (55.29) |
| Female | 21 (12.35) | 55 (32.35) | 76 (44.70) | |
| Total | 38 (22.35) | 132 (77.64) | 170 (100) |
| Food allergy | Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
Number of screened |
Positive food allergy |
||||
| Male | Female | Male | Female | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | 13–30 years | 31–52 years | |
| Egg white | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Egg yolk | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Cow's milk | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| nBos d8-casein | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Wheat flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Rye flour | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 4 (4.25) |
| Rice (f9) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Grain mix | 76 | 94 | 7 (9.21) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Sesame | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 6 (6.38) |
| Soybean | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 6 (7.89) | 2 (2.12) |
| Gluten | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Hazelnut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Almond | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 1 (1.06) |
| Walnut | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) |
| Pistachio | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Peanut | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 3 (3.19) |
| Strawberry | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) |
| Apple | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 1 (1.06) |
| Blue grape | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 0 (0) |
| Kiwi | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 5 (5.31) |
| Banana | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Mango | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 1 (1.06) |
| Peach | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 2 (2.12) |
| Cherry | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 3 (3.19) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 0 (0) |
| Honeydew melon | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 0 (0) |
| Citrus mix | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Bell pepper | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Eggplant | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Tomato | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 2 (2.12) |
| Potato | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 2 (2.12) |
| Garlic | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 5 (5.31) | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 4 (4.25) |
| Celery | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 0 (0) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 1 (1.06) |
| Chicken | 76 | 94 | 4 (5.26) | 7 (7.44) | 76 | 94 | 5 (6.57) | 6 (6.38) |
| Meat mix | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) | 76 | 94 | 1 (1.31) | 2 (2.12) |
| Shrimp/prawn | 76 | 94 | 3 (3.94) | 4 (4.25) | 76 | 94 | 2 (2.63) | 5 (5.31) |
| Seafood mix | 76 | 94 | 10 (13.15) | 12 (12.76) | 76 | 94 | 11 (14.47) | 11 (11.70) |
| Item number | Food allergy | Age groups |
Gender |
||
| 13–30 | 31–52 | Male | Female | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 6 | Rye flour | 1 (4.76) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 7 | Rice (f9) | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 8 | Grain mix | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 7 (41.17) | 4 (19.04) |
| 9 | Sesame | 4 (19.04) | 6 (35.29) | 5 (29.41) | 5 (23.80) |
| 10 | Soybean | 6 (28.57) | 2 (11.76) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (14.28) |
| 11 | Gluten | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 13 | Almond | 4 (19.04) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (14.28) |
| 14 | Walnut | 3 (14.28) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 15 | Pistachio | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (14.28) |
| 16 | Peanut | 4 (19.04) | 3 (17.64) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 17 | Strawberry | 1 (4.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 18 | Apple | 5 (23.80) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 19 | Blue grape | 1 (4.76) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 0 (0) |
| 20 | Kiwi | 1 (4.76) | 5 (29.41) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (9.52) |
| 21 | Banana | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 2 (11.76) | 0 (0) |
| 22 | Mango | 3 (14.28) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 23 | Peach | 4 (19.04) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 4 (19.04) |
| 24 | Cherry | 4 (19.04) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (14.28) |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.88) | 1 (4.76) |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 28 | Eggplant | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (4.76) |
| 29 | Tomato | 2 (9.52) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (11.76) | 2 (9.52) |
| 30 | Potato | 3 (14.28) | 2 (11.76) | 3 (17.64) | 2 (9.52) |
| 31 | Garlic | 4 (19.04) | 4 (23.52) | 3 (17.64) | 5 (23.80) |
| 32 | Celery | 2 (9.52) | 1 (5.88) | 3 (17.64) | 0 (0) |
| 33 | Chicken | 5 (23.80) | 6 (35.29) | 4 (23.52) | 7 (33.3) |
| 34 | Meat mix | 1 (4.76) | 2 (11.76) | 1 (5.88) | 2 (9.52) |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 2 (9.52) | 5 (29.41) | 3 (17.64) | 4 (19.04) |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 11 (52.38) | 11 (64.70) | 10 (58.82) | 12 (57.14) |
| P value | 0.08 | 0.0006 | 0.14 | 0.002 | |
| Number | Food allergen | No specific antibodie detected (class 0) |
Very weak antibody detection (class 1) |
Weak antibody detection (class 2) |
Definite antibody detection (class 3) |
Strong antibody detection (class 4) |
Very high antibody titer (class 5) |
Total |
|||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| 1 | Egg white | 32 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 2 | Egg yolk | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| 3 | Cow's milk | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 4 | nBos d8-casein | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 5 | Wheat flour | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 6 | Rye flour | 33 | 86.84 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 7 | Rice | 32 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 8 | Grain mix | 27 | 71.05 | 6 | 15.78 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 9 | Sesame | 28 | 73.68 | 6 | 15.78 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 10 | Soybean | 30 | 78.94 | 3 | 7.89 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 11 | Gluten | 35 | 92.10 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 12 | Hazelnut | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 13 | Almond | 33 | 86.84 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 14 | Walnut | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 15 | Pistachio | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 16 | Peanut | 31 | 81.57 | 5 | 13.15 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 17 | Strawberry | 34 | 89.47 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 18 | Apple | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 19 | Blue grape | 37 | 97.36 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 20 | Kiwi | 32 | 84.21 | 4 | 10.52 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 21 | Banana | 36 | 94.73 | 2 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 22 | Mango | 34 | 89.47 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 23 | Peach | 32 | 84.21 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 24 | Cherry | 34 | 84.21 | 1 | 2.63 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 25 | Honeydew melon | 36 | 94.73 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 26 | Citrus mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 27 | Bell pepper | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 28 | Eggplant | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 29 | Tomato | 34 | 84.21 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 30 | Potato | 33 | 86.84 | 2 | 5.26 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 31 | Garlic | 30 | 78.94 | 2 | 5.26 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 32 | Celery | 35 | 92.10 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 33 | Chicken | 27 | 71.05 | 1 | 7.89 | 4 | 10.52 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 2 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 34 | Meat mix | 35 | 92.10 | 2 | 5.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 35 | Shrimp/prawn | 31 | 81.57 | 3 | 7.89 | 1 | 2.63 | 3 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100 |
| 36 | Seafood mix | 16 | 42.10 | 4 | 10.52 | 5 | 13.15 | 10 | 26.31 | 2 | 5.26 | 1 | 2.63 | 38 | 100 |
| P value | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.00001 | 0.006 | 0.1 | - | - | |||||||
