MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006261465 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.190819

Association of use of cleaning products with respiratory health in a Canadian birth cohort

2020· article· en· W3006261465 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jaclyn Parks, Lawrence C. McCandless, Christoffer Dharma, Jeffrey R. Brook, Stuart E. Turvey, Piush J. Mandhane, Allan B. Becker, Anita L. Kozyrskyj, Meghan B. Azad, Theo J. Moraes, Diana L. Lefebvre, Malcolm R. Sears, Padmaja Subbarao, James A. Scott, Tim K. Takaro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySickKids FoundationPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of AlbertaManitoba Health
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstraZenecaHealth CanadaWellcome TrustChildren's Hospital FoundationMcMaster University
KeywordsWheezeAtopyMedicineAsthmaOdds ratioInterquartile rangeCohortPediatricsOddsRespiratory soundsConfidence intervalCohort studyLogistic regressionDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>BACKGROUND:</h3> Comprehensive longitudinal studies are important for understanding the complex risk factors, pathways, exposures and interactions that lead to the development and persistence of asthma. We aimed to examine associations between use of household cleaning products in early life and childhood respiratory and allergic disease using data from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study. <h3>METHODS:</h3> We summed responses from parental questionnaires that indicated the frequency of use of 26 household cleaning products in the homes of 2022 children from this birth cohort when they were 3–4 months of age to create a cumulative Frequency of Use Score (FUS). We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess whether frequent compared with less frequent use was associated with recurrent wheeze, atopy or asthma diagnosis, as defined by the questionnaire and clinical assessments at age 3 years. Data were collected between 2008 and 2015. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> Children in homes with a higher frequency of use of cleaning products in infancy, as determined by an interquartile range increase, had higher odds of recurrent wheeze (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.64), recurrent wheeze with atopy (adjusted OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.02–2.16) and asthma diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09–1.70), but no increase in the odds of atopy at age 3 years (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96–1.35). Compared with the lowest tertile of FUS exposure, infants in the highest tertile had higher odds of acquiring asthma. Stratification of the results showed that females had higher ORs than males for all outcomes, although the <i>p</i> values for this sex difference did not reach statistical significance. <h3>INTERPRETATION:</h3> Frequent use of household cleaning products in early life was associated with an increased risk for childhood wheeze and asthma but not atopy at age 3 years. Our findings add to the understanding of how early life exposures to cleaning products may be associated with the development of allergic airway disease and help to identify household behaviours as a potential area for intervention.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207