MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7039807765

Month of Birth & Childhood Asthma

2016· other· en· W7039807765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionHyporeflexiaGestational periodTSG101DiafiltrationProteogenomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies in the United States and Europe show that children born in fall-winter have higher risk of developing atopic status later in life. This study examines the relationship between month of birth and development of atopic status at 3 years of age across Canada. Method: The data were obtained from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) study. Data about month of birth, exposure to second hand smoking, mold, pet and cold were extracted from self reported questionnaire. Exposure to Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was calculated by averaging the concentration of NO2 for the first six month of life for each participant. In total, 2367 children of approximately 3 years of old including 338 atopic individuals that had complete data on date of birth, atopic status and study location were included. The logistic regression run to do bivariate analysis and build the final model. Results: Results suggest that children born in June and December have higher risk of developing atopic status at three years old, though this result was not significant. Conclusion: Further research is needed to investigate seasonal pollen pattern and its association with atopic status. These results could be used to implement preventive measures for early management of childhood 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→