Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about dietary supplement use among people with asthma, especially on a national level. We examined the prevalence and type of supplement use and demographic and health-related characteristics of users among US adults with asthma. Methods: Data from the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed. Asthma was defined by self-report of ever receiving a diagnosis and still having asthma currently. Dietary supplements were collected by direct inspection of products where possible (88% of the time), and were transcribed by trained nutritionists. Multivariate logistic procedure was performed to determine independent associations of supplement use with participant characteristics. Results: The prevalence of using a dietary supplement in the past month was similar between adults with asthma (50.2%, 8.6 million) and those without asthma (54%, 104.3 million). Among asthmatic adults, multivitamins/multiminerals (40.1%) were the most commonly used supplements, followed by vitamin B 12 (23.3%), vitamin C (19.9%), calcium (15.2%), vitamin E (14.7), folic acid (12.7%), vitamin B 6 (11.2%), thiamin (10.8%), niacin (10.8%), B complex vitamins (10.4%), and riboflavin (10.3%). Asthma adults who were supplement users tended to be older (50.2 ± 19.2 versus 45.2 ± 18.0 years for supplement users versus nonusers, respectively, P = 0.009), white/Hispanic, women, and had excellent/very good self-reported health. Forty-three percent of supplement users took only one supplement. Middle-aged and older asthma adults were more likely to use multiple supplements concurrently. Conclusion: Use of dietary supplements is popular in US adults with asthma, similar to the general adult population. It is important to take supplement use into account in clinical care for asthma patients and in the design and analysis in epidemiological and intervention studies of nutrition and asthma. Keywords: asthma, dietary supplements, minerals, nutrition, vitamins
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".