Trends in the prevalence of asthma and allergic rhinitis in Italy between 1991 and 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of asthma increased worldwide until the 1990s, but since then there has been no clear temporal pattern. The present study aimed to assess time trends in the prevalence of current asthma, asthma-like symptoms and allergic rhinitis in Italian adults from 1990 to 2010. The same screening questionnaire was administered by mail or phone to random samples of the general population (age 20-44 yrs) in Italy, in the frame of three multicentre studies: the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) (1991-1993; n = 6,031); the Italian Study on Asthma in Young Adults (ISAYA) (1998-2000; n = 18,873); and the Gene Environment Interactions in Respiratory Diseases (GEIRD) study (2007-2010; n = 10,494). Time trends in prevalence were estimated using Poisson regression models in the centres that repeated the survey at different points in time. From 1991 to 2010, the median prevalence of current asthma, wheezing and allergic rhinitis increased from 4.1% to 6.6%, from 10.1% to 13.9% and from 16.8% to 25.8%, respectively. The prevalence of current asthma was stable during the 1990s and increased (relative risk 1.38, 95% CI 1.19-1.59) from 1998-2000 to 2007-2010, mainly in subjects who did not report allergic rhinitis. The prevalence of allergic rhinitis has increased continuously since 1991. The asthma epidemic is not over in Italy. During the past 20 yrs, asthma prevalence has increased by 38%, in parallel with a similar increase in asthma-like symptoms and allergic rhinitis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".