Primary prevention of childhood asthma and allergic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of asthma and allergic disorders in childhood is increasing in many parts of the world. This review focuses on recent findings with regard to environmental risk factors and their manipulation in the primary prevention of these diseases in childhood. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have failed to resolve the controversy on the subject of exposure to indoor aeroallergens and the risk of sensitization and asthma in childhood. Bronchiolitis due to respiratory syncytial virus in infancy is associated with a significant increase in risk of asthma, but not atopy. In the prevention of these diseases, the effects of breastfeeding are controversial, with studies showing a protective effect in children without allergic predisposition, but other studies showing no effect or even the potential for an increased asthma risk. A significant reduction in the prevalence of doctor-diagnosed asthma at 7 years was found in a randomized controlled multifaceted (reduction of inhaled and ingested allergens) intervention study of high-risk infants. Other intervention measures, such as an education program on how to reduce exposure, the use of probiotics, and immunization against infections, all showed some protective effects. SUMMARY: More research is required, especially with regard to longer periods of follow-up for all current intervention studies aimed at reducing exposure, the onset and duration of intervention, and other novel intervention measures in the primary prevention of asthma and allergic diseases in childhood.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".