Title：Childhood risk factors influencing adult asthma：a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background： Despite the challenge of associating childhood risk factors with adult asthma, a systematic synthesis of evidence on the risk factors is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between childhood risk factors and adult asthma. Methods： We systematically searched the PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases from the inception to our last search date (10 November 2022). The search strategy included key words for risk childhood risk factors and adult asthma. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: Of 25 eligible articles, 18 domains of childhood risk factors were assessed. Bronchiolitis/wheezing (pooled adjusted OR=5.32; 95% CI: 2.83-10.02; I 2 =58%; number of outcomes [N] =7), eczema (pooled adjusted OR=2.01; 95% CI: 1.42-2.84; I 2 =79%; N=8), hay fever (pooled adjusted OR=3.31; 95% CI: 2.26-4.85; I 2 =0%; N=2), positive reaction of skin prick test (SPT)(pooled adjusted OR=2.37; 95% CI: 1.18-4.77; I 2 =54%; N=3), airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR)(pooled adjusted OR=2.73; 95% CI: 1.52-4.88; I 2 =0%; N=2) and pool lung function (pooled adjusted OR=2.88; 95% CI: 1.41-5.87; I 2 =0%; N=2) during childhood increased the risk of adult asthma. Association of childhood asthma and rhinitis with adult asthma needs more studies to confirm. Childhood body mass index (BMI) wasn’t found to be related to adult asthma (pooled adjusted OR=1.06; 95% CI: 0.57-1.97; I 2 =78%; N=3). The evidence was insufficient to draw conclusion for passive smoking, household economical condition, keeping pets, girls matured early, slept for insufficient durations, being abused, pneumonia, adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy, cognitive ability. Conclusion: Childhood bronchiolitis/wheezing, eczema, hay fever, positive reaction of SPT, AHR and poor lung function were associated with an increased risk of adult asthma. These identified risk factors would be helpful for the early prevention of the adult asthma. And future studies might need to clarify and supplement existing conclusions from more aspects.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".