Neighborhood Material Deprivation Is Associated with Childhood Asthma Development: Analysis of Prospective Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Material deprivation has been proposed as a more comprehensive measure of socioeconomic status than parental income. Stronger associations between childhood emergency department visits for asthma and air pollution have been demonstrated among children living in neighborhoods with high levels of deprivation, but the associations with asthma development and ongoing asthma are not known. Objectives: We determined the associations between neighborhood material deprivation and the development of new and ongoing childhood asthma. Methods: Prospectively collected administrative data housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences were examined for Toronto children born from 1997 to 2003. Neighborhood material deprivation, comprising no high school graduation, lone parent families, government transfers, unemployment, low income, and homes needing major repairs, was reported in the Ontario Marginalization Index. Incident asthma was defined by the time of entry into the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System (OASIS) database. We measured the risk of incident asthma using Cox proportional hazards models and the associations between ongoing asthma visits and deprivation by year of life with generalized linear mixed models. Results: OASIS asthma criteria were met for 21% of the 326,383 children. After adjustment for characteristics strongly associated with asthma, including male sex, prematurity, obesity, and atopic conditions other than asthma, children with high birth neighborhood deprivation were at increased risk of incident asthma (HR 1.11; 95% CI, 1.09-1.13). High deprivation in a given year of life was associated with increased odds of ongoing asthma during that year of life (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Conclusions: Children living in high-deprivation neighborhoods are at increased risk of incident and ongoing asthma. This study suggests that neighborhood material deprivation may represent a helpful tool for evaluating the effects of disparities in health and social advantages on the likelihood of developing and continuing to need healthcare visits for ongoing childhood asthma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".