Household incense burning and children's respiratory health: A cohort study in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incense burning is an important source of indoor air pollution in many Asian regions. We investigated the associations between household incense burning and lung function, lung function growth and respiratory diseases and symptoms in primary school children in Hong Kong. METHODS: A total of 4041 children (mean age: 9.1 years) were recruited from 27 primary schools in Hong Kong. Information on incense burning and medical history of respiratory diseases and symptoms was collected by questionnaire. Spirometry tests were performed to measure the children's lung function. A follow-up study was carried out after 1-year interval. Linear and logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations between incense burning, lung function, and lung function growth, and respiratory diseases and symptoms, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, incense burning was associated with 48.6 mL/min [95% confidence interval (CI): -96.7, -0.5] lower maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) in boys. In follow-up, incense burning was associated with reduced peak expiratory flow (PEF) growth in all participants. We also found that incense burning was associated with increased prevalence of bronchitis [odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.11, 1.72] and bronchiolitis (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.14, 2.56). Incense burning was also associated with higher prevalence of pneumonia (OR = 2.79, 95%CI: 1.10, 6.87) and wheezing (OR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.08, 2.05) in boys, but not in girls. CONCLUSIONS: We found that incense burning may adversely affect children's respiratory health. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".