Does previous infection protect against atopic eczema and recurrent wheeze ininfancy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frequent infection in infancy and early childhood has been hypothesized to explain the low prevalence of asthma and other atopic disease among children in developing countries (the so-called 'hygiene hypothesis'), but the low prevalence in Eastern Europe remains unexplained. OBJECTIVE: To test the hygiene hypothesis in the Republic of Belarus by examining the relationship between gastrointestinal (GI) and respiratory infection and two potentially atopic outcomes in the first 12 months of life: atopic eczema and recurrent wheeze. METHODS; We carried out two case-control studies nested within a large (n=17 046) randomized trial in Belarus, with cases defined as (1) first occurrence of atopic eczema (n=819) and (2) second episode of wheezing (n=112). Incidence density sampling was used to select four matched controls born within 1 month at the same hospital as the case. Exposure was defined as one or more episodes of GI or respiratory infection (examined separately) with onset >7 days before onset of the case's atopic outcome. Analyses controlled for family atopic history, duration of exclusive breastfeeding, sex, birth weight, maternal education, and (for recurrent wheeze) maternal smoking. RESULTS: For atopic eczema, prior GI infection occurred in 7.4% of cases vs. 6.0% of controls [adjusted OR=1.27 (0.94-1.72)] and prior respiratory infection in 35.2% vs. 32.6% [adjusted OR=1.14 (95% CI=0.94-1.37)]. For recurrent wheeze, prior GI infection occurred in 9.8% of cases vs. 7.4% of controls [adjusted OR=1.30 (0.60-2.82)]. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the hypothesis that infection protects against atopic eczema or recurrent wheezing in the first 12 months of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".