Intake of multivitamin supplements and incident asthma in Norwegian adults: the HUNT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although intake of multivitamin supplements is becoming increasingly popular, the relationship between intake of multivitamin supplements and incident asthma remains unclear. Prospective studies in adults with long-term follow-up are especially scarce. Our objective was to investigate the association between intake of multivitamin supplements and asthma development in Norwegian adults. We followed 16 952 adult subjects from the second survey of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (1995-1997) up to 2006-2008, who, at baseline, were free of asthma and provided information on their intake of multivitamin supplements and cod liver oil. Regular intake of multivitamin supplements or cod liver oil was defined as daily intake for ≥3 months during the year prior to baseline. Incident asthma was defined as reported new-onset asthma after the 11-year follow-up. Intake of multivitamin supplements only was associated with an increased odds ratio for incident asthma (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12-2.13) after adjustment for a number of common confounding factors (model I). Similar odds ratios were found for intake of cod liver oil only and for intake of both supplements (1.59 and 1.73, respectively). Regular intake of multivitamin supplements was associated with an increased odds ratio for incident asthma in Norwegian adults.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".