The Impact of War on Asthma, a Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis: An <scp>EAACI</scp> Task Force Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wartime events have been followed by an increase in asthma prevalence, which is believed to result from a combination of environmental hazards and psychological trauma. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate this relationship by pooling available data on various wartime exposures, such as occupational, environmental, and psychological factors. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles that measure the effect of war-related exposures on asthma. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. The retrieved effects were then used to fit meta-analytical models. A total of 48 studies, corresponding to 90 effect measures, were included. War-related post-traumatic stress disorder showed the strongest association with asthma outcomes (OR [95% CI] = 2.25 [1.04, 4.89]), followed by experiencing at least one life-threatening event (1.96 [1.18, 3.26]) and depression (1.56 [1.02, 2.37]). Although environmental exposures were also associated with an increased asthma risk in subgroup analysis (1.64 [1.32, 2.04]), this effect was mitigated when psychological variables were included in the models. The study's results show that wartime events and conflicts may increase asthma prevalence and outcomes associated with asthma. The management of asthma symptoms, lung function, and mental health seems fundamental in individuals who have experienced psychological trauma in war zones. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023444101.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".