Day-care center attendance and risk of Asthma—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma and other wheezing disorders are common chronic health problems in childhood. We aim to evaluate whether the attendance by children under three years of age to day-care centers is a protector or risk factor in the development of recurrent wheezing or asthma in the following years of their lives. Systematic review of published cohort or cross-sectional studies, without any time limitation. We searched in PubMed, Cinhal, Cuiden and Scopus (EMBASE included). The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Disagreements were solved by mutual consensus. Weighted odds ratio (ORs) were estimated using RevMan 5.3, following random effects models. We selected 18 studies for qualitative analysis, nine cohort studies and nine cross-sectional studies. Day-care center attendance is associated with an increased risk of early recurrent wheezing (four studies; 50,619 subjects; adjusted OR 1.87 [1.21 to 2.88]; I2 91%) and asthma before the age of six (five studies; 5412 subjects; adjusted OR 1.59 [1.26 to 2.01]; I2 0%), but not later (five studies; 5538 subjects; adjusted OR 0.86 [0.55 to 1.32]; I2 76%). Children attending day-care center during the first years of life have a higher risk of recurrent wheezing during the first three years and asthma before the age of six, but not later. This risk must be taken into account to inform parents in order to choose what kind of care children should have throughout infancy and to implement preventive measures to reduce its impact.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".