Allergen avoidance in the primary prevention of asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Six primary prevention studies trialing environmental modifications to reduce asthma in children have published results of clinical outcomes. All are still in progress. RECENT FINDINGS: In the Isle of Wight study, mite and food avoidance were evaluated to age 9 months. At 8 years, children in the active group had less current wheeze, wheeze with bronchial hyperresponsiveness and atopy (P < or = 0.05). The Canadian Primary Prevention Study examined avoidance of inhalant and food allergens. At 1 year there was a reduction in probable asthma and rhinitis in the active group. The Study on the Prevention of Allergy in Children in Europe tested avoidance of inhalant and food allergens. At 1 year there was less atopy and sensitization to mites in the active group. In the Childhood Asthma Prevention Study both mite avoidance and a dietary supplement of omega 3 fatty acids were analysed in a factorial design. At age 18 months, children in the dietary intervention group had significantly less wheeze. Eczema was more common amongst children using the mite avoidance measures. The Prevention and Incidence of Asthma and Mite Allergy Study is a placebo-controlled study of mite avoidance. At 2 years, there was a small reduction in nocturnal cough without a cold in the active group. The Manchester Asthma and Allergy Study included stringent environmental control. At 1 year prescribed medication for wheeze and wheeze with shortness of breath were significantly less common in the active group than the control group. SUMMARY: Although initial results look promising, further follow up of the ongoing cohorts is required before any recommendations can be made within the public health context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".