Childhood Asthma and Environmental Exposures at Swimming Pools: State of the Science and Research Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have explored the potential for swimming pool disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are respiratory irritants, to cause asthma in young children. Here we describe the state of the science on methods for understanding children's exposure to DBPs and biologics at swimming pools and associations with new-onset childhood asthma and recommend a research agenda to improve our understanding of this issue. DATA SOURCES: A workshop was held in Leuven, Belgium, 21-23 August 2007, to evaluate the literature and to develop a research agenda to better understand children's exposures in the swimming pool environment and their potential associations with new-onset asthma. Participants, including clinicians, epidemiologists, exposure scientists, pool operations experts, and chemists, reviewed the literature, prepared background summaries, and held extensive discussions on the relevant published studies, knowledge of asthma characterization and exposures at swimming pools, and epidemiologic study designs. SYNTHESIS: Childhood swimming and new-onset childhood asthma have clear implications for public health. If attendance at indoor pools increases risk of childhood asthma, then concerns are warranted and action is necessary. If there is no such relationship, these concerns could unnecessarily deter children from indoor swimming and/or compromise water disinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence of an association between childhood swimming and new-onset asthma is suggestive but not conclusive. Important data gaps need to be filled, particularly in exposure assessment and characterization of asthma in the very young. Participants recommended that additional evaluations using a multidisciplinary approach are needed to determine whether a clear association exists.
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 | 0.132 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".