MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta analysis of the risk factors of recurrent wheezing in infants

2015· article· en· W3029248491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenjie Shan, Yanming Lu, Yaqin Li, Lingyun Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua shiyong erke linchuang zazhi · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaPediatricsFamily historyAttendanceMeta-analysisAtopyCochrane LibraryBronchiolitisInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To analyze the relevant risk factors of recurrent wheezing(≥3 attacks) in the first 3 years of life. Methods Wheezing, respiratory sounds, risk factorwere used as key words to retrieve papers in Chinese literature databases including Sinomed, Wanfang and Weipu databases.The same strategy was used to retrieve English papers in English literature databases including PubMed, Cochrane library and EMbase.Time range was from 31th May 2004 to 1rd June 2014.The execution of quality evaluation of the included documents was in compliance with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and cross-sectional study standard recommended by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.The evidence quality evaluation was conducted with GRADEpro and followed by the Meta analysis with RevMan 5.2. Results A total of 13 studies were included in this Meta-analysis.Several factors were related to recurrent wheezing episodes, including risk factors such as maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR=1.47, 95%CI: 1.30-1.66), asthma in parents(OR=1.94, 95%CI: 1.72-2.19), family history of atopy(OR=1.94, 95%CI: 1.72-2.19), male(OR=1.42, 95%CI: 1.19-1.69), history of eczema(OR=2.36, 95%CI: 1.69-3.30), colds(>6 times)(OR=2.02, 95%CI: 1.54-2.64), history of bronchopneumonia(OR=1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.34), exposure to cigarette smoking(OR=2.30, 95%CI: 1.68-3.14), daycare attendance(OR=2.27, 95%CI: 1.97-2.60); Education received by the mother >12 years (OR=0.80, 95%CI: 0.70-0.92) was the protective factor. Conclusions The risk factors of recurrent wheezing(≥3 attacks) in the first 3 years of life are maternal smoking during pregnancy, asthma in parents, family history of atopy, male, history of eczema, colds(>6 times), history of bronchopneumonia, exposure to cigarette smoking and daycare attendance.The protective factor is education received by the mother≥12 years.The prerequisite in precaution of infants recurrent wheezing is to ensure the utmost avoidance of hazardous factors and reinforcement of protective factors. Key words: Recurrent wheezing; Risk factor; Infant; Meta analysis

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.068
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua shiyong erke linchuang zazhiSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207