Children with Asthma Are Less Likely to Walk to School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determine if children with asthma are more/less likely to walk to school, and if the living distance modifies this association. Five thousand six hundred nineteen children aged 5–9 completed the Toronto Child Health Evaluation Questionnaire. The mode of transportation was defined as walking, driven by car, or school bus. Children were categorized by the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood methodology as doctor-diagnosed current or lifetime asthma, symptomatic controls (asthma symptoms without diagnosis), or asymptomatic controls. The living distance was the shortest driving distance between home and school. Adjusted models revealed children with current asthma [odds ratio (OR) 1.29; 95% CI 1.01–1.65], lifetime asthma (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.01–1.56), and symptomatic controls (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.14–1.59) were more likely to be driven by car versus asymptomatic controls. Among children who lived within walking distance of the school (≤1.5 km), symptomatic controls were more likely to be driven by car (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.56) or school bus (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01–2.17); however, children with current (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00–2.92), or lifetime asthma (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.06–2.76) were more likely to be driven only by school bus. Children with asthma or respiratory symptoms are less likely to walk and more likely to be driven to school. Among children who are ineligible for school bus programs based on the living distance from school, children with asthma are still more likely to be bussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".