A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention Program in the Primary Prevention of Asthma in High-Risk Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".