MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090017080 · doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.7.657

A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention Program in the Primary Prevention of Asthma in High-Risk Infants

2000· article· en· W2090017080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Moira Chan‐Yeung, Jure Manfreda, Helen Dimich‐Ward, Alexander C. Ferguson, Wade Watson, Allan B. Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaRelative riskConfidence intervalPediatricsBreastfeedingRandomized controlled trialHouse dust miteTobacco smokeEnvironmental healthAllergyAllergenInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of asthma has increased in developed countries in the past 2 decades. The effectiveness of intervention measures on the primary prevention of asthma has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention program in the primary prevention of asthma in high-risk infants (in this study, infants are defined as persons from birth to the age of 1 year). DESIGN: Prospective, prenatally randomized, controlled study with follow-up through the age of 1 year. SETTING: University hospital-based settings at 2 Canadian centers: Vancouver, British Columbia, and Winnipeg, Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 545 high-risk infants (at least 1 first-degree relative with asthma or 2 first-degree relatives with other IgE-mediated allergic diseases) identified before birth. INTERVENTIONS: Avoidance of house dust mite and pet allergens and environmental tobacco smoke, encouragement of breastfeeding, and supplementation with a partially hydrolyzed formula. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probable or possible asthma, rhinitis without apparent colds, and a prick skin test result positive for common inhalant allergens. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (15.1%) of the 251 infants available for assessment in the intervention group and 49 (20.2%) of the 242 infants available for assessment in the control group fulfilled the criteria for possible or probable asthma (adjusted relative risk, 0.66; 90% confidence interval, 0.44-0.98). Also, 16.7% of the infants in the intervention group and 27.3% of the infants in the control group developed rhinitis without colds (adjusted relative risk, 0.51; 90% confidence interval, 0.35-0.74). The incidence of positive skin test results to 1 or more inhalant allergens was similar in both groups (4.4% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group). CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted intervention program resulted in a modest but significant (P= .04) reduction in the risk of possible or probable asthma and rhinitis without apparent colds at the age of 12 months in high-risk infants. In the absence of a validated definition of asthma at the age of 12 months, follow-up studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention program in the primary prevention of asthma in high-risk infants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207