The relationship of domestic pet ownership with the risk of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: The relationship between pet ownership and childhood asthma remains controversial. In recent years, there have been increasing studies with large sample size. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between pet ownership and childhood asthma. Method: Relevant research was retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of science. The retrieval was as of October 1, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Stata 15.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 60 studies with large sample size published between 1995 and 2021 were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 18 cohort studies and 42 case-control studies covering 27 countries and 1,871,295 children. As shown by meta-analysis results, cat ownership (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.05∼1.33) and dog ownership (OR = 1.12, 95%CI: 1.0 0∼1.24) have a significant bearing on the occurrence of childhood asthma. Pet ownership was also positively correlated with the occurrence of severe childhood asthma (OR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.11∼1.20). Conclusion: Pet ownership, especially cats and dogs, is associated with the occurrence of asthma in children.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".