MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380870055 · doi:10.1515/jpm-2022-0543

Perinatal, obstetric and parental risk factors for asthma in the offspring throughout childhood: a longitudinal cohort study

2023· article· en· W4380870055 on OpenAlexaff
Rafael A. Caparrós-González, Cecilia A. Essau, Jean‐Philippe Gouin, Andrés Pemau, Alejandra Gálvez-Merlín, Alejandro de la Torre‐Luque

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatal Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaOffspringCohortCohort studyRisk factorPregnancyProportional hazards modelPediatricsDemographyObstetricsImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Asthma is a common chronic and burdensome disease which typically begins in childhood. The aim of this study was to assess perinatal and obstetric factors which may increase the risk of developing asthma in the offspring. METHODS: Data from five consecutive waves (n=7,073 children, from birth to 15 years old) from a nationally-representative birth cohort of people born in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2002, the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), were used. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to graphically display the risk of developing asthma from early childhood to adolescence. The Z-based Wald test was used to prove significant covariate loading. RESULTS: (18)=899.30, p<0.01. A parent with asthma (OR=2.02, p<0.01), a younger maternal age at delivery (OR=0.98, p<0.05), and the use of assisted reproductive technology (OR=1.43, p<0.05) were associated with an increased risk of developing asthma in the offspring. CONCLUSIONS: Perinatal factors (a younger maternal age, assisted reproductive technology) and a parental factor (a parent with asthma) increased the risk for developing asthma in the offspring.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perinatal MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207