Timing of introduction to solid food, eczema and wheezing in later childhood: a longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timing of introduction to solid food has been associated with eczema and wheezing in childhood. Our aim was to determine whether differences persist within the recommended 4 to 6 month age range. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study with repeated measures was conducted among children from birth to 10 years of age who were participating in the TARGet Kids! practice based research network in Toronto, Canada. The primary exposure was the timing of introduction to infant cereal as the first solid food. The primary outcome was eczema and the secondary outcome was wheezing collected by parent report using the validated International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire. Multinomial generalized estimating equations were used and effect modification by family history of asthma and breastfeeding duration were explored. RESULTS: Of the 7843 children included, the mean (standard deviation) age of introduction to infant cereal was 5.7 (1.9) months. There was evidence for family history of asthma and breastfeeding duration to be effect modifiers in the eczema (P = 0.04) and wheezing (P = 0.05) models. Introduction to infant cereal at 4 vs. 6 months of age was associated with higher odds of eczema (OR 1.62; 95% CI: 1.12, 2.35; P = 0.01) among children without a family history of asthma who were not breastfeeding when solid foods were introduced. Introduction to infant cereal at 4 vs. 6 months of age was associated with a higher odds of wheezing (OR 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.52; P < .001) among children without a family history of asthma who were breastfeeding when solid foods were introduced. There was little evidence of an association among the remaining strata for either outcome. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study support recommendations to introduce solid food around 6 months of age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".