The impact of participation in the SAGE study on parent behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was an analysis of the SAGE nested case-control, comprised of children with asthma (40%), no asthma and no allergy (40%), and rhinitis no asthma (20%). 486 children were seen at 8-10 years and again at 12-13 years. All children were assessed by a pediatric allergist and had skin testing to common aeroallergens. At 8-10 years, the families of children with a positive sensitization to HDM received an information brochure on environmental control for HDM. Parent modification of their home environment was defined as encasement of the child’s mattress or pillow and/or removal of carpet for the child’ sb edroom. Results 113 of the 486 children were sensitized to HDM (D. pteronyssinus or D.farinae). Of the 113 families, 49 undertook a home environment change. 30/49 (61%) of parents had children with asthma and 19/49 (39%) did not. Interestingly, the percent of parents who modified their environment did not significantly differ between those with asthmatic children (44%) and those with healthy children (42%). Conclusion Almost two-thirds of the families in the SAGE study made changes to their home environment because of HDM sensitization in their asthmatic child. However, these families were no more likely to change their environment than families with a child without asthma. We need to better understand the factors involved with parents’ willingness to modify their home environment for a child with 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".