The <scp>C</scp>anadian <scp>H</scp>ealthy <scp>I</scp>nfant <scp>L</scp>ongitudinal <scp>D</scp>evelopment Birth Cohort Study: Biological Samples and Biobanking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesised that complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors give rise to allergy and asthma in childhood. The Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) study was designed to explore these factors. METHODS: CHILD is a longitudinal, general population birth cohort study following infants from mid-pregnancy to age 5 years. Over this time period, biological samples, questionnaires, clinical measures and environmental data are collected. RESULTS: A total of 3624 families have been recruited, and many thousands of samples and questionnaires have been collected, annotated, and archived. This report outlines the rationale and methodology for collecting and storing diverse biological samples from parents and children in this study, and the mechanisms for their release for analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The CHILD sample and data repository is a tremendous current and future resource and will provide a wealth of information not only informing studies of asthma and allergy, but also potentially in many other aspects of health relevant for Canadian infants and children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".