The Role of the Social Environment in Children and Adolescents with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Biopsychosocial models of asthma have been proposed in the literature, but few empirical tests of social factors at various levels of influence have been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To test associations of neighborhood, peer, and family factors with asthma outcomes in youth, and to determine the pathways through which these social factors operate. METHODS: Observational study of youths with asthma (n = 78). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Youths completed questionnaires about neighborhood problems, peer support, and family support. Biological (IgE, eosinophil count, production of IL-4) and behavioral (youth smoking, exposure to smoke, adherence to medications) pathways were measured. Asthma symptoms and pulmonary function were assessed in the laboratory and at home for 2 weeks. Lower levels of family support were associated with greater symptoms (beta coefficients: -0.26 to -0.33, P < 0.05) and poorer pulmonary function (beta: 0.30, P < 0.05) via biological pathways (Z statistics from 1.19 to 1.51, P < 0.05). Higher levels of neighborhood problems were associated with greater symptoms (beta coefficients: 0.27-0.33, P < 0.05) via behavioral pathways related to smoking (Z statistics = 1.40, P < 0.05). Peer support was not associated with symptoms or pulmonary function. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that family factors may affect youths' asthma via physiologic changes, whereas community factors may help shape the health behaviors of youths with asthma.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".