Longitudinal changes in prevalence of chronic bronchitis in rural people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Smoking, obesity, socioeconomic status, family history of lung diseases and airborne pollutants have been significantly associated with the prevalence of chronic bronchitis (CB). Our objective was to evaluate changes in the prevalence of CB and associated risk factors within a rural population. Methods: The Saskatchewan Rural Health Study is a prospective study of the lung health of rural dwellers. The baseline survey was conducted in 2010. We obtained completed questionnaires from 4624 households (8261 individuals) in baseline and 2797 households (4867 individuals) in follow-up (2014). The questionnaire collected information on individual and contextual determinants. Clustering effects within household and due to repeated observations were accounted for appropriately. Results: Incidence of CB was estimated as 4.3% over 4 years. The prevalence was 6.4% and 5.3 % (baseline) and 12.1% and 9.2% (follow-up) in non-farm and farm residents, respectively. The prevalence of CB was associated with the following factors (odds ratio (95% confidence interval)): being female-1.58 (1.25, 2.0), being obese-1.32 (1.04, 1.66), father9s history of lung disease -1.61 (1.27, 2.04), mother smoked during pregnancy-1.52 (1.17, 1.99), allergies to cats-1.85 (1.42, 2.40) and allergies to pollen -1.92 (1.53, 2.40), dose-response relationship was observed with household income adequacy where there was an increased risk associated with lower income group. Exposure to stubble smoke interacted with exposure to wood dust and mother9s history of lung disease was interacted with educational level. Conclusion: High prevalence of CB in rural people appears related to a complex mix of personal and contextual factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".