Forceps birth delivery, allergic sensitisation and asthma: a population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies indicate an increased risk of allergies among children born by caesarean section, possibly because immune development is altered by avoiding exposure to maternal vaginal flora. It is unknown if other obstetric interventions are associated with allergies. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between delivery with forceps assistance and development of atopy and asthma. METHODS: In a population-based cohort of 1037 individuals born in 1972/73, atopy was assessed by skin-prick tests for common allergens at ages 13 and 32 years. A history of asthma was obtained at the same ages. Associations between birth with forceps assistance, atopy and asthma were assessed with adjustments for sex, head circumference at birth, parental atopy disease, birth order and socio-economic status. RESULTS: Children born using forceps were more likely to have atopy at ages 13 (53% vs. 44%) and 32 (68% vs 59%). They were also more likely to have asthma (21% vs. 11% and 23% vs. 16% at ages 13 and 32 respectively). Except for asthma at age 13, these associations were not statistically significant after adjustment for multiple confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Delivery with forceps assistance is associated with an increased risk of atopy and asthma, but the associations were weaker after adjustment for confounding factors. The previously reported association between caesarean birth and atopic disease may be due to confounding rather than altered exposure to maternal flora, although other factors associated with a difficult labour cannot be ruled out.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".