Dietary patterns and asthma incidence in adult population. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<bold>Objective:</bold> We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the association between a healthy dietary pattern and adult-onset asthma following the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. <bold>Methods:</bold> Inclusion criteria were RCT or cohort studies evaluating a dietary pattern and their association with asthma incidence in adults. We searched two databases, Medline (PubMed) and ISI Web of Science until November 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). <bold>Results:</bold> Ten cohort studies were included in the systematic review and seven of them were assessed in a quantitative random-effects meta-analysis. They included a total of 597,909 participants with 10,988 asthma events. Dietary patterns or indexes were most frequently measured with validated food frequency questionnaires. Follow-up ranged between 5 and 16 years. No significant reduction in asthma risk was associated with higher adherence to a high-quality dietary pattern (relative risk [RR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.02). However, there was a substantial between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 81.8%, p < 0.001) and potential sources of heterogeneity were identified. <bold>Discussion:</bold> Differences between studies in measuring the incidence of asthma, as well as, in assessing dietary patterns are likely to be potential sources of heterogeneity. Nevertheless, with the currently available evidence a beneficial association between adherence to a healthy dietary pattern and lower risk of adult-onset asthma cannot be supported.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".