Relationship between dietary patterns and asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The findings from previous studies investigating the association between asthma and dietary patterns are inconsistent.OBJECTIVES The objective of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the association between dietary patterns and asthma risk.METHODS We searched seven databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and the Cochrane database) for articles published between January 1, 1980 and November 30, 2019 that reported on dietary patterns and asthma. Pairs of reviewers independently reviewed each study at all stages: screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessment.MEASUREMENTS: Summary estimates of dietary patterns and asthma are reported from random effects meta-analysis.MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,730 articles identified, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Directionally, consumption of the Mediterranean Diet (RR 0.88; CI 0.74–1.05) was associated with a lower risk for asthma, whereas consumption of the Western Diet (1.10; 0.95–1.28) and Prudent Diet (1.09; 0.98–1.20) has higher risk. However, these effects are small and statistically not significant. There were insufficient studies to meta-analyze spirometric, mortality or quality of life indices.CONCLUSIONS Overall, adherence to the Mediterranean, Western, or Prudent Diets was not associated with a statistically significant difference in the risk of developing asthma. However, current evidence in this area comes primarily from observational studies of varying qualities, and larger well-designed longitudinal studies or randomized controlled trials are needed.
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 | 0.026 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".