Disparate geographic prevalences of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema among adolescents in five Canadian cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess concordance of prevalence rates of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema symptoms among adolescents in five Canadian cities. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood Phase 3 written questionnaires were answered by 8334 adolescents aged 13 to 14 in Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Hamilton and Halifax, Canada. Prevalence rates of current symptoms ranged from 13.7-33.0% for wheezing, 14.6-22.6% for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and 8.2-10.4% for atopic eczema. Using Hamilton as reference, the prevalence of wheezing was significantly higher in Halifax (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.36-1.84) and Saskatoon (1.27; 1.07-1.50) and significantly lower in Vancouver (0.51; 0.44-0.59). In contrast, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis was significantly more prevalent in Winnipeg (1.39; 1.16-1.68) and Halifax (1.36; 1.14-1.61) and trended lower in Saskatoon (0.81; 0.66-1.00). Atopic eczema was significantly more prevalent in Winnipeg (1.31; 1.01-1.69) and Vancouver (1.28; 1.04-1.58). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed the region of residence, being born in Canada, recent use of acetaminophen and heavy exposure to traffic exhaust were significantly associated with all three allergic conditions, while obesity and having two or more smokers at home was only associated with increased risk for wheezing. Chinese ethnicity decreased that risk. Among five Canadian centres, the highest prevalence rates of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or atopic eczema were not observed in the same regions as the highest prevalence rates of wheezing. This disparity in regional variations in the prevalence rates suggests dissimilar risk factors for the development or expression of wheezing (asthma), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".