An international comparison of risk factors between two regions with distinct differences in asthma prevalence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Investigation of the geographic variation in asthma prevalence can improve our understanding of asthma etiology and management. The purpose of our investigation was to compare the prevalence of asthma and wheeze among adolescents living in two distinct international regions and to investigate reasons for observed differences. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 13-14 year olds was completed in Saskatoon, Canada (n=1200) and Skopje, Republic of Macedonia (n=3026), as part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase 3 study. Surveys were self-completed by students following the ISAAC protocol. Multiple logistic regression models were used to investigate associations with reports of asthma and current wheeze. A mediation analysis was then completed. RESULTS: Asthma prevalence was much higher in Saskatoon than Skopje (21.3% vs. 1.7%) as was the prevalence of current wheeze (28.2% vs. 8.8%). Higher paracetamol (acetaminophen) use was a consistent risk factor for asthma and wheeze in both locations and showed dose-response relationships. In both countries, paracetamol use and physical activity mediated some of the association for both asthma and wheeze. In Saskatoon, among those with current wheeze, 42.6% reported ever having a diagnosis of asthma compared to 10.2% among Skopje adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the variation in risk factors between the two locations may explain some of the differences in the prevalence of asthma and wheeze between these two study sites. However, diagnostic labeling patterns should not be ruled out as another potential explanatory factor.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".