Linking anemia to asthma: maternal, childhood and adult perspectives from a meta-analysis of 20 studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Anemia has been implicated as a potential risk factor for asthma across different life stages, yet evidence remains inconsistent.Objective This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the associations between maternal anemia and offspring asthma, childhood anemia and asthma, and adult anemia and asthma.Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, identifying 20 observational studies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. Heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were explored through subgroup analyses, sensitivity tests, and Egger’s test. Meta-analysis performed using Stata 17.Results Twenty studies involving over 4499364 participants were included. The results showed pooled OR for the association between anemia and asthma (OR = 1.55,95% CI: 1.36,1.77). Maternal anemia during pregnancy was associated with a modest increase in offspring asthma risk (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02–1.38), adult anemia was also linked to asthma (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.14–3.30). Childhood anemia showed a stronger association with asthma (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.65–2.99), though Egger’s test (p = 0.041) suggested publication bias, with an adjusted OR of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.51–2.74).Conclusions Anemia is significantly associated with an increased risk of asthma, particularly in children. These findings suggest a potential role for anemia screening in asthma management.
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 | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".