Home exposure to moisture and mold is associated with poorer asthma control in children: CHAMPIASTHMA study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Deleterious indoor environment is a risk factor for poor asthma control in children. Objective We assessed the association between exposure to moisture and/or mold (EMM) and asthma control in children. Methods The CHAMPIASTHMA study is a multicenter cross-sectional observational study. Children with recurrent wheeze/asthma aged 1 to 17 years were stratified by EMM, as assessed by a standardized questionnaire administered to their parents. The primary outcome was asthma control according to Global Initiative on Asthma guidelines. Secondary outcomes were: control according to asthma control test or pediatric asthma control test score, exacerbations (unscheduled visits, oral corticosteroid receipt, and hospitalization), asthma treatment step, and mold sensitization. Clinical trial registration: NCT04918394. Results Four hundred twenty-four patients were included, among whom 146 (34%) noted EMM. Patients with EMM more frequently had disease that was not controlled according to Global Initiative on Asthma guidelines (64 [45%] vs 90 [33%]; P = .03), and had lower asthma control test scores (22 [19-25] vs 24 [21-25]; P = .02), more frequent unscheduled visits (65 [45%] vs 86 [32%]; P = .02), and a trend for higher oral corticosteroids receipt in the past year (53 [37%] vs 74 [27%]; P = .09). There was no difference in asthma treatment step and hospitalization for exacerbations. Forty-two (12%) of 341 children were sensitized to molds, with no difference between the EMM and non-EMM groups ( P = .85). Conclusion The CHAMPIASTHMA study highlights that EMM is associated with poorer disease control and asthma outcomes in children. The search for EMM during scheduled visits should be systematic, especially in cases of uncontrolled asthma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".