Sex Differences in Factors Associated with Childhood- and Adolescent-Onset Wheeze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Factors predicting the development of wheeze may differ between sexes and between childhood and adolescence. METHODS: A New Zealand birth cohort of 1,037 children was followed to age 26. For this analysis, those reporting recurrent wheezing at two or more assessments were classified as "wheezers." We examined risk factors for development of wheeze before age 10 (childhood) and subsequently (adolescent-onset) for males and for females separately using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: Males more often developed childhood wheeze (p = 0.002) and females adolescent-onset wheeze (p < 0.001). Maternal atopy (asthma or hay fever) was a risk factor for childhood wheeze in both sexes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48, p < 0.05 for males; HR, 2.37, p < 0.001 for females). Paternal atopy also influenced childhood wheeze, significantly for males (HR, 1.72; p = 0.01), and similarly but not significantly for females (HR, 1.70; p = 0.08). For adolescent-onset wheeze, neither maternal (HR, 1.41; p = 0.19) nor paternal history (HR, 0.73; p = 0.42) was a risk factor in males, but maternal history (HR, 2.08; p < 0.01) was a significant risk factor for females. When both age ranges were combined, providing greater power for analysis, paternal history was a stronger risk factor for wheeze in females (HR, 1.62; p = 0.02) than in males (HR, 1.35; p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The influence of parental atopy on the development for wheeze differs between males and females and between childhood- and adolescent-onset wheeze.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".