Persistent Effects of Maternal Smoking during Pregnancy on Lung Function and Asthma in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The extent to which maternal smoking in pregnancy (MSP) has persisting effects on respiratory health remains uncertain and the mechanisms involved are not fully understood. Alterations in immune function have been proposed as a mechanism contributing to respiratory disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether MSP increases risk of respiratory disorders in adolescence and, if so, whether this occurs by decreased lung function, altered immune function, and/or enhanced atopy. METHODS: Data on spirometry, bronchial responsiveness, respiratory symptoms, total and allergen-specific IgE and IgG4, immune function, and inflammatory markers were obtained from 1,129 participants in the 14-year follow-up of the Western Australian Pregnancy (Raine) Cohort and related to MSP using regression analyses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: MSP was reported for 21.0% (237 of 1,129) of participants, with 92 (8.1%) reporting current smoking. MSP was associated with some altered immune measures at age 14. MSP was strongly related to reduced lung function in current nonsmokers (forced expiratory flow midexpiratory phase [FEF25-75%], P = 0.016; FEV1/FVC, P = 0.009) and increased risk for current asthma (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.92; P = 0.01), current wheeze (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.14-2.75; P = 0.011), and exercise-induced wheeze (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.37-3.85; P = 0.002), but not for bronchial hyperresponsiveness or atopy. Adjustment for immune measures and/or lung function in multivariate models did not greatly alter these associations and the increased risks for asthma and wheeze were not modified by sex, atopy, or maternal history of asthma or atopy. CONCLUSIONS: MSP increases risk of asthma and wheezing in adolescence; mechanisms go beyond reducing lung function and exclude altering immune function or enhancing atopy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".