The risk factors for asthma in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify risk factors for asthma in adolescents and provide a reference for disease management.Data Sources A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 1, 2024.Study Selections The study used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. The range of scores for inclusion in the study was 7 to 9. Heterogeneous results were pooled using a random-effects model and reported as odds ratio (OR).Results Fifteen studies comprising 73, 314 participants were included. The results of forest map showed that a total of 12 risk factors were associated with asthma in adolescents. Previous hypersensitivity reaction (OR 2.87 [95% CI 2.50–3.31]; p< 0.001), history of family hypersensitivity reaction (OR 2.35 [95% CI 1.93–2.86]; p< 0.001), history of family asthma (OR 2.48 [95% CI 1.97–3.12]; p< 0.001), active smoking (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.28, 1.69]; p< 0.001), exposure to secondhand smoke (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.20–1.34]; p< 0.001), domestic animals (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.13–1.29]; p< 0.001), outdoor pollution (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.15, 1.41]; p< 0.001), and biofuel (OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.02–1.19]; p< 0.001), and obese/overweight (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.13–1.40]; p< 0.001), private school (OR 1.82 [95% CI 1.52–2.18]; p< 0.001), and female (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.11– 1.32]; p< 0.001) were found to be correlated.Conclusion This study may provide a reference to inform the development of preventive strategies and management of adolescent 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".