Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human vs Machine in Bioengineering Allergology: A Comparative Analysis of Conventional vs Innovative Methods for Quantifying Allergological Skin Prick Tests

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions, commonly triggered by allergens, play a crucial role in clinical allergies. The skin prick test is the primary diagnostic tool for allergy, involving the application of an allergen drop on the forearm's volar surface. A sterile lancet is then used to cross the drop, observing the formation of a wheal if sensitized. In allergy practice, wheals are quantified using an arbitrary visual scale or methods such as the Dermographic Pen Method, involving a dermographic pen and graph paper, or a centimeter ruler. These methodologies are semi-quantitative, time-consuming, and operator-dependent. This study addresses the need for accurate and standardized quantification of SPT responses. We developed a Semi-Automated Method (SAM) for wheal detection to achieve this.

Methods

A cohort of 26 patients with respiratory allergies underwent SPTs with various allergens. Wheals were quantified using three methods: Arbitrary Visual Scale (AVSM), DPMM (Dermographic Pen Measurement Method), and the newly developed SAM. SAM utilized photographic detection and image analysis, and calculated major and minor diameters, mean diameter, wheal surface area, and skin index.

Results

Comparative analysis revealed SAM's superior performance in precision and efficiency compared to AVSM and DPMM. Mean surface measurements of histamine-generated wheals using SAM were significantly lower than those obtained with DPMM. Interestingly, SAM consistently demonstrated better performance across all tested allergens.

Conclusion

The introduction of SAM represents a significant advancement in allergy diagnostics. Its semi-automated approach enhances precision and facilitates long-term monitoring of SPT results. Through automation, SAM achieves accuracy in results and ease of use, notably improving allergy diagnostics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data will be made available upon request.

Abbreviations

AVSM :

Arbitrary Visual Scale Method

DPMM :

Quantification with Dermographic Pen Measurement Method

SAM :

Semi-Automated Method

SPT :

Skin Prick Test

References

  1. Anvari, S., Miller, J., Yeh, C. Y., & Davis, C. M. (2019). IgE-mediated food allergy. Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology, 57(2), 244–260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vitte, J., Vibhushan, S., Bratti, M., Montero-Hernandez, J. E., & Blank, U. (2022). Allergy, anaphylaxis, and nonallergic hypersensitivity: IgE, mast cells, and beyond. Medical Principles and Practice : International Journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 31(6), 501–515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Albanesi, M., & Daeron, M. (2012). The interactions of therapeutic antibodies with fc receptors. Immunology Letters, 143(1), 20–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanagaratham, C., El Ansari, Y. S., Lewis, O. L., & Oettgen, H. C. (2020). IgE and IgG antibodies as regulators of mast cell and basophil functions in food allergy. Frontiers in Immunology, 11, 603050.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tanaka, S., & Furuta, K. (2021). Roles of IgE and histamine in mast cell maturation. Cells, 10(8), 2170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Qiu, C., Zhong, L., Huang, C., Long, J., Ye, X., Wu, J., Dai, W., Lv, W., Xie, C., & Zhang, J. (2020). Cell-bound IgE and plasma IgE as a combined clinical diagnostic indicator for allergic patients. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fornadley, J. A. (2014). Skin testing for inhalant allergy. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, 4(Suppl 2), S41–S45.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heinzerling, L., Mari, A., Bergmann, K. C., Bresciani, M., Burbach, G., Darsow, U., Durham, S., Fokkens, W., Gjomarkaj, M., Haahtela, T., Bom, A. T., et al. (2013). The skin prick test - European standards. Clinical and Translational Allergy, 3(1), 3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Frati, F., Incorvaia, C., Cavaliere, C., Di Cara, G., Marcucci, F., Esposito, S., & Masieri, S. (2018). The skin prick test. Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, 32(1 Suppl), 19–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel, G., & Saltoun, C. (2019). Skin testing in allergy. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings : The Official Journal of Regional and State Allergy Societies, 40(6), 366–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Valk, J. P., van Gerth, W. R., Hoorn, E., Groenendijk, L., Groenendijk, I. M., De Jong, N. W., et al. (2015). Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results. Clin Transl Allergy, 6, 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Farage, M. A., Maibach, H. I., Andersen, K. E., Lachapelle, J. M., Kern, P., Ryan, C., Ely, J., & Kanti, A. (2011). Historical perspective on the use of visual grading scales in evaluating skin irritation and sensitization. Contact Dermatitis, 65(2), 65–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Albanesi, M., Nico, A., Sinisi, A., Giliberti, L., Rossi, M. P., Rossini, M., Kourtis, G., Rucco, A. S., Loconte, F., Muolo, L., Zurlo, M., et al. (2018). A 13-year real-life study on efficacy, safety and biological effects of vespula venom immunotherapy. Clinical and Molecular Allergy, 16, 2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Corallino, M., Nico, A., Kourtis, G., Caiaffa, M. F., & Macchia, L. (2007). Skin testing technique and precision in stinging insect allergy. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(7), 1256–1264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pineda, J., Vargas, R., Romero, L. A., Marrugo, J., Meneses, J., & Marrugo, A. G. (2019). Robust automated reading of the skin prick test via 3D imaging and parametric surface fitting. PLoS One, 14(10), e0223623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tversky, J., & MacGlashan, D. (2020). Short-wave infrared camera as a novel solution to allergy skin testing. Allergy, 75(4), 965–968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Exosens. (2024, March). Efficient Tool for Allergy Detection. Retrieved from https://www.exosens.com/news/efficient-tool-allergy-detection

  18. Morales-Palacios, M. P., Núñez-Córdoba, J. M., Tejero, E., Matellanes, O. .Ó. ., Quan, P. L., Carvallo, A., Sánchez-Fernández, A., Urtasun, M., Larrea, C., Íñiguez, M. T., & Giménez, R. (2023). Reliability of a novel electro-medical device for wheal size measurement in allergy skin testing: An exploratory clinical trial. Allergy, 78(1), 299–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gorris, S. (2022). Reduced intra-subject variability of an automated skin prick test device compared to a manual test. Allergy, 78(5), 1366–1368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun, W., Pan, L., Yu, Q., Sun, Y., Zeng, X., Bai, X., & Li, M. (2018). The skin prick test response after allergen immunotherapy in different levels of tIgE children with mite sensitive asthma/rhinitis in South China. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 14(10), 2510–2515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang, X., Li, M. R., Wang, C., Wang, X. N., Zhang, H. L., LIn, J., Jin, K., & Li, Y. C. (2010). Clinical efficacy of a standardized specific immunotherapy against house dust mite in 85 asthmatic children. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi, 48(7), 526–530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tabar, A. I., Arroabarren, E., Echechipía, S., García, B. E., Martin, S., & Alvarez-Puebla, M. J. (2011). Three years of specific immunotherapy may be sufficient in house dust mite respiratory allergy. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 127(1), 57–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

The authors declare that this study was carried out with institutional resources only.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. “M. Albanesi” Allergy and Immunology Unit, Bari, Italy

    Stefano Palazzo, Nada Chaoul & Marcello Albanesi

  2. The Allergist Srls, Bari, Italy

    Stefano Palazzo, Nada Chaoul & Marcello Albanesi

  3. Faculty of Technological and Innovation Sciences, Universitas Mercatorum, Piazza Mattei, 10, Rome, Italy

    Stefano Palazzo

  4. University of Bari - Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy

    Nada Chaoul

Authors
  1. Stefano Palazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nada Chaoul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcello Albanesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.P. provided developed the idea and wrote the computer code to implement it, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript; N.C. discussed the results and helped with the data analysis; M.A. provided the scientific idea, conceived and supervised the study, provided clinical assistance to the patients, secured the financial support and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Palazzo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Consent for Publication

All patients signed consent forms before undergoing medical procedures and for processing personal data (refer to the 'Materials and Methods' section).

Informed Consent

All the authors have approved the manuscript and the submission.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palazzo, S., Chaoul, N. & Albanesi, M. Human vs Machine in Bioengineering Allergology: A Comparative Analysis of Conventional vs Innovative Methods for Quantifying Allergological Skin Prick Tests. J. Med. Biol. Eng. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-024-00856-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-024-00856-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation