Association of a Novel Index of Early-life Growth Conditions With Later-life Asthma Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Adverse early-life growth conditions have been implicated in asthma susceptibility, but methods for inferring early-life growth conditions retrospectively in adulthood are lacking. A novel index of early-life growth conditions deployable in adulthood – the difference between attained adult height and genotype-predicted height (‘height-GaP’) – has been validated against prospectively ascertained adverse early-life growth conditions, but its relationship to clinical asthma is uncertain. This study investigated whether larger height-GaP deficit was associated with asthma diagnosis, age at diagnosis, and blood eosinophils in a population-based sample. Methods: UKBiobank is a prospective cohort of community-dwelling adults enrolled between 40-69 years in 2006-2010 from across the United Kingdom.Height-GaP was computed as the difference between attained adult height and genotype-predicted height using individual genotype data. Physician diagnosis of asthma and age at diagnosis were self-reported.Blood eosinophil count was assessed using an LH750 Haematology Analyser.Modified Poisson regression models used to estimate prevalence ratios and differences while adjusting for age, sex, genotype-predicted height and principal components of genetic ancestry. Results: Among 484,119 participants (mean±SD age 56.5±8.1 years, 45.7% male), 55,891 (11.5%) reported receiving a diagnosis of asthma by a physician at the baseline visit, of which 30.3% received their asthma diagnosis in childhood (age <18 years). Larger height-GaP deficit was associated with higher prevalence of asthma diagnosis and higher prevalence of blood eosinophil count > 300 cells/μL (Table). Among participants with an asthma diagnosis, larger height-GaP deficit was associated with later age at diagnosis (p<0.001), but not blood eosinophil count > 300 cells/μL. Conclusion: Adverse early-life growth conditions, as assessed by the difference between adult attained height and genotype-predicted height, were associated with higher prevalence of asthma diagnosis, older age at diagnosis, and higher prevalence of eosinophil count above 300 cells/μL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".