Asociación entre la exposición al frío y el asma: revisión sistemática y meta-análisis, 1965-2015
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: to conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational and expe- rimental studies that explore the relation between asthma and cold exposure. Materials and methods: systematic review of experimental and observational studies pu- blished up to August 2015 in Pubmed, Embase and Lilacs. Two researchers selected studies that measured the occurrence of asthma in individuals exposed to different environmen- tal temperatures. A meta-analysis used RevMan 5.3’s random effects model to calculate a summary weighted Odds Ratio with 95% confidence intervals, and a sensitivity analysis identified the influence of each study. Subsequent subgroup analyses identified summary measures by type of cold exposure and study design. Additional analysis measured hetero- geneity and risk of bias. Results: we found 86 studies measuring the relation between cold exposure and asthma. We included 11.6% (10/86) of the studies in the meta-analysis and found an association between cold exposure and asthma with all the studies (ORw 2.0 95%CI 1.28-3.14), with the subgroup of experimental studies (ORw 3.8 IC95% 1.70-8.86), and with cold environmental air (ORw 1.59 IC95% 1.10-2.30). The studies had high risk of bias and statistical heteroge- neity [I2 : 63.1% (27%-81.4%)]. Conclusions: the results support the hypothesis of an association between asthma and cold exposure. This study encourages to explore the concepts proposed by traditional medi- cine to establish its benefits on prevention and care of respiratory diseases, such as 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it