ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2026
Computational Approaches to Penicillin Allergy De-labelling: A Clinical Review.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penicillin allergy is recorded in roughly one in ten hospital patients, yet fewer than one in ten of those records reflects a real, clinically significant allergy. The mismatch matters: patients with a penicillin label receive more second-line and broader-spectrum antibiotics, with measurable downstream costs in infection, surgical site morbidity, length of stay, and antimicrobial resistance. Specialist-led skin testing and graded oral challenge remain the diagnostic standard, but the global allergy workforce cannot test the population that needs testing. Validated decision rules such as PEN-FAST, structured non-allergist pathways, and direct oral challenge in low-risk patients have closed part of that gap, but uptake is still limited by inconsistent free-text documentation, variable clinician confidence, and weak integration with electronic health records. This review summarises how computational methods are being added to that pathway. Supervised machine-learning models can mine electronic health records to identify candidates for review. Natural language processing can recover the timing, character, and severity of a reaction from clinic letters that the structured allergy field omitted. Predictive models that combine clinical, laboratory, and immunological inputs are starting to outperform rule-based scores on beta-lactam risk. Decision-support systems are moving past simple drug-name matching toward context-aware alerts. Image classifiers and large language models are opening a route to rapid, photograph-and-history triage. We discuss what is needed for any of this to be safe in routine care: representative training data, transparent model behaviour, regulatory alignment, and prospective evaluation against the outcomes the antimicrobial stewardship community already measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.