Symptoms to pollen and fruits early in life and allergic disease at 4 years of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The predictive value of reported early symptoms to pollen or fruits on later allergic disease is unclear. Our aim is to evaluate if symptoms to pollen and/or to fruits early in life are associated with allergic disease and sensitization to pollen at 4 years. METHODS: The study included 3619 children from the Barn (Children), Allergy, Milieu, Stockholm, Epidemiology project (BAMSE) birth cohort. Reported symptoms of wheeze, sneeze or rash to birch, grass or weed, symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea, rash, facial edema, sneeze, or wheeze) to fruits including tree-nuts at 1 or 2 years of age, and definitions of asthma, rhinitis and eczema at 4 years were derived from questionnaire data. Sensitization to pollen allergens was defined as allergen-specific IgE-antibodies to any pollen (birch/timothy/mugwort) > or =0.35 kU(A)/l. RESULTS: At 1 or 2 years of age, 6% of the children were reported to have pollen-related symptoms, 6% had symptoms to fruits, and 1.4% to both pollen and fruits. Children with symptoms to both pollen and fruits at 1 or 2 years of age had an increased risk for sensitization to any pollen allergen at age 4 (OR(adj) = 4.4, 95% CI = 2.1-9.2). This group of children also had a substantially elevated risk for developing any allergic disease (asthma, rhinitis, or eczema) at 4 years irrespective of sensitization to pollen (OR(adj) = 8.6, 95% CI = 4.5-16.4). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of reported symptoms to pollen and fruits is very low in early childhood. However, children with early symptoms to both pollen and fruits appear to have a markedly elevated risk for allergic disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".