Original Contribution Determinants of the Incidence of Childhood Asthma: A Two-Stage Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive literature exists on potential risk factors for childhood asthma. To the authors ’ knowledge, no inves-tigators have yet attempted to disentangle the effects of those determinants within a single study setting. The authors aimed to evaluate the independent effects of 47 potential determinants (from the prenatal, perinatal, and childhood periods) of asthma development in children within the first 10 years of life. From a Canadian birth cohort of 26,265 children (1990–2002), a 2-stage case-control study was conducted. In the first stage, 20 controls per case were selected from 3 administrative databases. In the second stage, selected mothers were mailed ques-tionnaires for assessment of additional determinants. Increased risks of childhood asthma were found for 1 previous diagnosis of bronchopulmonary disease and atopic dermatitis in the child, oxygen administration after birth, prescription of antibiotics within the first 6 months of life, male gender, asthma during pregnancy, use of antibiotics during pregnancy, maternal receipt of social aid, paternal asthma, and asthma in siblings. Protective effects included use of intranasal corticosteroids during pregnancy, having a wood-burning fireplace, having pets in the home prior to the index date, breastfeeding, and day-care attendance. This study allowed the authors to identify, within a single setting, the most influential determinants of childhood asthma among 47 predictors as-sessed for the prenatal, perinatal, and childhood periods. asthma; case-control studies; child; databases as topic; epidemiologic factors; Quebec; questionnaires; risk factors
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".