Familial and environmental determinants for wheezing and asthma in a case‐control study of school children in Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our prevalence study on Palestinian school children aged 6-12 years showed lower rates for asthma and asthma symptoms than economically developed and industrialized countries. Reasons for such differences are largely unknown, and could possibly be related to different environmental and lifestyle factors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate familial, early life exposures and indoor environmental determinants for asthma in children in Palestine. METHODS: From the population of our previous study, a group of 273 children with wheeze in the past 12 months (of whom 99 children had physician-diagnosed asthma) were matched with an equal number of non-wheezing controls. This case-control study involved a parental questionnaire; skin prick testing (SPT) with mixed house dust mites, cat and dog dander, mixed grass, mixed trees pollen, Alternaria tenuis, olive tree and cockroach extracts; and serum for total and specific IgE for the same eight allergens. RESULTS: Paternal asthma and maternal hayfever significantly tripled the risk for their children to have wheezing. Previous diagnoses of bronchial allergy, bronchitis, pneumonia, or whooping cough, and positive SPT for house dust mites and cockroaches were significantly more likely among wheezing and asthmatic children than controls. Specific IgE levels for house dust mites and cat allergens showed significantly higher risk for reported wheezing. After adjustment for several environmental and sociodemographic factors using multivariate logistic regression analysis, paternal asthma, maternal hayfever, damp houses, cat and cockroach SPT positivity proved to be strong predictors for wheezing symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that familial 'atopic' diseases are significant predictors of childhood asthma in Palestinian children. Moreover, indoor environment such as presence of cats and domestic moulds also appear to play a role. Our findings are consistent with studies in Canada, New Zealand, Estonia and Sweden, and show promise to explore further gene-environment interaction in the genesis of 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".