Association Between Hemoglobin A1c and Pediatric Asthma Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the relationship between Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and asthma outcomes in an urban cohort of children with asthma. Methods: The AIRWEIGHS Study was a randomized controlled clinical trial of an air cleaner intervention testing the hypothesis that overweight/obese children would experience greater improvement in asthma control compared to normal weight children. The study enrolled 164 children with asthma from Baltimore, MD and assessed HbA1c levels and asthma outcomes during clinic visits at baseline and three months. HbA1c levels were analyzed as a continuous measure and categorized as either normal (<5.7%) or consistent with pre-diabetes (≥5.7%). Asthma outcomes included standardized questionnaires, spirometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) regression models were used to analyze the association between the HbA1c and asthma outcomes. Results: Participants included 164 children with an average age of 11 (± 2) years, predominately African American (85%), male (59%), moderate or severe asthma by NAEPP criteria (59%), households with an income below $34,999 (60%), publicly insured (83%), and overweight/obese (61%). 52 participants were excluded from the analysis due to unsuccessful blood draws or participant refusal. Twenty of 112 distinct participants (18%) had HbA1c measurements ≥5.7%, consistent with prediabetes. Increased HbA1c levels were associated with worse asthma control as indicated by an increase in the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (β-0.74 p<0.05). In the interaction analysis, BMI percentile had a significant interaction with HbA1c such that HbA1c had a stronger association with maximum symptoms days and exacerbation risk among children with lower versus higher BMI percentile values. Conclusion: Higher HbA1c levels were associated with worse asthma control among children with asthma, adding to evidence that metabolic dysfunction may influence asthma morbidity. Additionally, HbA1c could have a stronger influence among non-obese children with underlying metabolic dysfunction, suggesting the need for future studies to investigate metabolic pathways in 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".