Prevalence of asthma in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the Th1/Th2 paradigm, the expansion of Th1-type clones in individuals with type 1 diabetes results in reduced Th2-type clones, preventing the development of atopic diseases and vice versa. However, there is no consensus regarding the direct or inverse relationship between autoimmune and atopic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to examine the knowledge gap about the possibility of coexistence of asthma and type 1 diabetes and determine the prevalence of this association. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, following the proposal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Population, Concept, and Context strategy was used to formulate the guiding question. The proposed question was: "What is the prevalence of asthma in people with T1DM?" After excluding duplicate articles, analyzing titles and abstracts, and excluding articles that did not answer the guiding question, 17 articles remained and were included in this review. RESULTS: Most of the articles selected conformed to the Th1/Th2 hypothesis, as the prevalence of asthma was lower in individuals with T1DM. However, similar or higher prevalence of asthma was found between cases and controls in few articles. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of asthma in people with T1DM ranged from 1.7% to 23.1%. Maybe the mechanisms that characterizes the Th1/Th2 paradigm aren't as simple as just the interaction of certain cytokines, since Th1-mediated autoimmune diseases and Th2- mediated atopy can coexist.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".