Birth Cohort Studies on Asthma Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In past decades the prevalence of asthma in children has increased substantially but this trend seems not to have persisted into the twenty-first century. What might have caused the increased prevalence is not well understood. With the expectation that the prevalence may be decreased by reducing exposure to environmental factors, several birth cohort studies are being (or have been) carried out all over the world. Although many studies are still ongoing, decisions on data gathered by these studies will be of great importance for clinical practice. An overview of designs of available studies will be essential in constructing a metaanalysis. We describe the similarities and differences between designs and variable sets of birth cohort studies focusing on the relationship between allergen exposure (solely or in combination with other environmental exposures) and development of childhood asthma. We also evaluate which studies are particularly qualified for inclusion in a meta-analysis relating asthma prevention to environmental exposures. Ongoing birth cohort studies on allergen exposure (solely or in combination with other environmental exposures) in relation to asthma development in children were identified and all available information on study designs was collected and compared. From the 19 studies selected, 13 are prospective cohort studies and 6 are randomized clinical trials (RCTs). All 6 RCTs included children during prenatal life whereas all but 5 prospective cohort studies started after birth. The exposures that almost all studies focus on are house dust mite (HDM) allergens, pet allergens, food allergens, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). We concluded that RCTs are the best candidates for inclusion in a meta-analysis (an individual subject data analysis) in the future. Four RCTs we evaluated as being particularly suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis on the basis of similarities in their study designs: the Isle of Wight Study, the Canadian Allergy and Asthma Project (CAAP), the CAPS Study, and the PREVASC Project. Of these four all recommend multifaceted interventions, and differences in their designs are expected to be overcome by stratification and restriction to homogeneous clusters. (Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 2005; 18[4]:201–215.)
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 | 0.045 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".