Epidemiology of allergic rhinitis in Quebec: from a 2008 population-based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of symptoms and the proportion of a lifetime physician-based diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) in the province of Quebec among people aged 15 years and older. METHODS: The 2008 Quebec Population Health Survey provided data on the prevalence of symptoms and proportion of lifetime physician-based diagnoses of AR. The prevalence of symptoms was defined as the proportion of individuals who, in the absence of a cold or the flu, had nasal and ocular symptoms in the 12 months before the survey. RESULTS: The reported prevalence of AR symptoms was 17%, although 9% did not have a diagnosed condition. Reported prevalence was lowest in those aged 65 years and older (12%) and was more common among women (19%) than men (15%). The estimated prevalence of lifetime physician-based diagnosis was 17%. CONCLUSION: AR prevalence is high in Quebec with about 1 in 6 people experiencing symptoms. The condition is underdiagnosed and might also be undertreated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".