Childhood food insecurity and incident asthma: A population-based cohort study of children in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood food insecurity has been associated with prevalent asthma in cross-sectional studies. Little is known about the relationship between food insecurity and incident asthma. METHODS: We used administrative databases linked with the Canadian Community Health Survey, to conduct a retrospective cohort study of children <18 years in Ontario, Canada. Children without a previous diagnosis of asthma who had a household response to the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) were followed until March 31, 2018 for new asthma diagnoses using a validated administrative coding algorithm. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to examine the association between food insecurity and incident asthma, and adjusted models sequentially for clinical and clinical/socioeconomic risk factors. As additional analyses, we examined associations by HFSSM respondent type, severity of food insecurity, and age of asthma diagnosis. Moreover, we assessed for interaction between food security and child's sex, household smoking status, and maternal asthma on the risk of incident asthma. RESULTS: Among the 27,746 included children, 5.1% lived in food insecure households. Over a median of 8.34 years, the incidence of asthma was 7.33/1000 person-years (PY) among food insecure children and 5.91/1000 PY among food secure children (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54, p = 0.051). In adjusted analyses associations were similar (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.47, p = 0.24 adjusted for clinical risk factors, HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.60, p = 0.09 adjusted for clinical/socioeconomic factors). Associations did not qualitatively change by HFSSM respondent type, severity of food insecurity, and age of asthma diagnosis. There was no evidence of interaction in our models. CONCLUSIONS: Food insecure children have numerous medical and social challenges. However, in this large population-based study, we did not observe that childhood food insecurity was associated with an increased risk of incident asthma when adjusted for important clinical and socioeconomic confounders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".