Contact with livestock – a protective effect against allergies and asthma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A 'protective farm factor' possibly related to livestock exposure is hypothesized to reduce the risk for allergic sensitization. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether 4-H club youth, who have opportunities for contact with livestock through club activities, have reduced risks of respiratory and allergic symptoms according to residence on a farm or exposure to livestock. METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey was completed by British Columbia 4-H members 8-20 years of age; a subset underwent skin prick testing as well. The association of farm residence and livestock exposure variables with symptoms were evaluated using logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, cat and/or dog ownership, parental history of allergic disease, parental education, number of older siblings and exposure to smokers at home. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 1158 participants (response rate 50.3%); of these, a subset of 317 had skin prick tests (SPTs) (response rate 64.4%). Current residence on a farm was associated with a lower prevalence of ever having wheeze and asthma, as well as symptoms of atopic dermatitis. Variables relating to residence in a farm or rural area with livestock were more strongly associated with respiratory and allergic symptoms than were the livestock exposure variables such as frequency of contact and hours of barn use. The adjusted odds ratios for living in a farm residence in comparison with a rural non-livestock area were 0.49 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.89) for diagnosed asthma, 0.51 (95% CI 0.30-0.85) for allergic rhinitis and 0.45 (95% CI 0.24-0.84) for atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that some aspects of the farm environment, not just attributable to contact with livestock, were protective for respiratory and allergic conditions among 4-H youth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".