Does early life exposure to exogenous sources of reactive oxygen species (ROS) increase the risk of respiratory and allergic diseases in children? A longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excess reactive oxygen species (ROS) can cause oxidative stress damaging cells and tissues, leading to adverse health effects in the respiratory tract. Yet, few human epidemiological studies have quantified the adverse effect of early life exposure to ROS on child health. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association of levels of ROS exposure at birth and the subsequent risk of developing common respiratory and allergic diseases in children. METHODS: 1,284 Toronto Child Health Evaluation Questionnaire (T-CHEQ) participants were followed from birth (born between 1996 and 2000) until outcome, March 31, 2016 or loss-to-follow-up. Using ROS data from air monitoring campaigns and land use data in Toronto, ROS concentrations generated in the human respiratory tract in response to inhaled pollutants were estimated using a kinetic multi-layer model. These ROS values were assigned to participants' postal codes at birth. Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for confounders, were then used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per unit increase in interquartile range (IQR). RESULTS: , was associated with an increased risk of asthma (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.21, p < 0.02) per IQR. There were no statistically significant associations of ROS with allergic rhinitis (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.88-1.04, p = 0.35) and eczema (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.09, p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: These findings showed that ROS exposure in early life significantly increased the childhood risk of asthma, but not allergic rhinitis and eczema.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".