MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100517974

Printed In U.S.A. Maternal Smoking and Childhood Asthma

2016· article· en· W7100517974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioAsthmaTobacco smokeConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Risk factorPassive smoking
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of maternal smoking as a causal factor for the incidence of childhood asthma is still not clearly established. It was investigated among 3- and 4-year-old-child incident cases confirmed by a 6-year follow-up (n = 294) and cases who no longer had symptoms after diagnosis (n =110). The study took place in Montreal, Canada, between 1988 and 1997. Persistent and transient cases were compared with their respective controls from the original case-control study of incidence. The odds ratio for heavy maternal smoking adjusted for known risk factors for asthma was 3.84 (95 % confidence interval: 1.68, 8.76) among persistent cases and close to one among transient cases. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:528-31. asthma; child; environmental exposure; parents; tobacco smoke pollution Two overviews on the respiratory health effects of environmental tobacco smoke were recently pub-lished: in one, maternal smoking was associated with a pooled odds ratio for clinically diagnosed asthma in children of 1.44 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.27, 1.64) (1); in the other, the pooled odds ratio was 1.31 (95 percent CI: 1.22, 1.41) for wheezing illness

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8380.694

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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 topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→