The role of farm operational and rural environments as potential risk factors for pediatric asthma in rural Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers have historically reported that farm children have a lower prevalence of asthma compared to more urban children. Potential explanations include theories surrounding differences in personal factors, access to health care, engagement in health risk behaviors, and differences in the environment. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to: (1) confirm whether the prevalence of asthma varies between farm and small town status among children living in Saskatchewan; (2) identify risk and protective factors for asthma, and use this information to infer which of the above theories is most explanatory for any observed geographic variations in pediatric asthma. METHODS: Rural students (N = 2383, 42% participation rate) from the province of Saskatchewan participated in a 2011 cross-sectional study. Parents completed a survey that included questions about location of residence, respiratory symptoms, potential risk factors for respiratory disease, and exposures to farm activities. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine relations between respiratory outcomes (asthma, wheeze) with farm type and farm activities, while accounting for factors that may underlie such relations. RESULTS: Asthma and wheeze prevalence did not differ by residential status. Living on a grain farm (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.43-0.96), cleaning or playing in pens (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.46-1.02), filling grain bins (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.32-0.96), and riding horses (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.40-1.05) were protective factors for ever diagnosis with asthma. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a number of risk and protective factors for asthma and associated wheeze. This suggests the need to focus on specific environmental explanations to better understand previously observed associations between farm residential status and asthma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".