Medications During Infancy May Shape Future Allergy Risk
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a retrospective study using the US TriNetX Network to examine whether the use of acid-suppressive medications or antimicrobials during infancy influences the risk of developing allergic diseases in childhood.
They identified infants who were prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs; n = 15,375), histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs; n = 42,913), at least one antibiotic course (n = 740,121), or three or more antibiotic courses (n = 163,098) during the first year of life and compared them with 1,510,074 infants who received none of these medications during their first 2 years.
Three allergic outcomes, namely anaphylaxis, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis, were assessed at 2 years of age.
TAKEAWAY:
Infants prescribed PPIs during their first year of life had more than a fivefold higher risk for food allergy (risk ratio [RR], 5.33; 95% CI, 4.97-5.71) and nearly a 2.5-fold higher risk for anaphylaxis (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.40-4.41) by 2 years of age than unexposed infants.
Similarly, infants prescribed H2RAs had a 4.2-fold higher risk for food allergy (RR, 4.21; 95% CI, 4.01-4.41), a 1.4-fold higher risk for atopic dermatitis (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.35-1.48), and nearly a 4.5-fold higher risk for anaphylaxis (RR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.43-5.86) than unexposed infants.
Infants with at least one antimicrobial prescription during infancy showed nearly twice the risk for food allergy and more than twice the risk for both atopic dermatitis and anaphylaxis than unexposed infants.
Infants who received three or more antimicrobial prescriptions in their first year faced sharply elevated 2-year risks compared with unexposed infants — nearly 2.8-fold for food allergy, 3.4-fold for atopic dermatitis, and 3.7-fold for anaphylaxis.
IN PRACTICE:
'The composition of the gut microbiota is strongly associated with allergic manifestations, as the commensal bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract promote healthy development of the gut immune system with promotion of food tolerance,' the study authors wrote. 'Antibiotic exposure disrupts these microbial communities, which in turn affects individuals' immune response and likely increases their susceptibility for allergic manifestations,' they added.
SOURCE:
Mohamad R. Chaaban, with the Head & Neck Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on May 30 in the Journal of Clinical Medicine .
LIMITATIONS:
The misdiagnosis of infant food allergies as gastroesophageal reflux disease and higher acid-suppressive medication use in more severe cases may have confounded the associations between these medications and food allergy.
DISCLOSURES:
This project was supported in part by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Northern Ohio, which is funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NASA detects new planet with temperatures that suggest habitable conditions
The James Webb telescope has made another stunning discovery -- this time of a massive planet that could potentially sustain life, according to multiple space agencies. Astronomers have captured "compelling evidence" of a planet with a mass about 100 times the size of Earth orbiting a young, red dwarf star 34 light-years away called TWA 7 or CE Antilae. MORE: Rare exoplanet discovered in outskirts of the Milky Way The planet, named TWA 7b, was detected by the James Webb Space Telescope, the most powerful telescope ever put into space, according to NASA. An initial analysis suggests the object could be a young, cold planet with a temperature near 120 degrees Fahrenheit, NASA said. Life can grow and reproduce starting at about 5 degrees Fahrenheit and as high as 251 degrees Fahrenheit, scientists say. MORE: Could our solar system have 9 planets after all? Astronomers may have confirmed possible existence. An international team of astronomers noticed a faint infrared source in a disk of debris surrounding the star, a distance about 50 times the space between Earth and the Sun, NASA said. They then used the telescope's mid-infrared instrument to suppress the bright glare of the host star to reveal the faint objects nearby, a method called high-contrast imaging that allows astronomers to directly detect planets that would otherwise be lost in the "overwhelming" light. If confirmed, this would be the first time the James Webb telescope captured a direct image that led to the discovery of a planet, rather than gravitational lensing -- a technique based on Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, according to astronomers. The detection would match the expected position of a planet and explain key features of planets seen in the debris disk, according to the space agency. The source of the infrared light is located within three dust rings observed surrounding TWA 7. MORE: HExoplanet discovered in 2020 has the coldest temperatures ever measured, scientists say The debris disk surrounding TWA 7 is one of the youngest debris disks known to date, according to a paper published last week in Nature. "Our observations reveal a strong candidate for a planet shaping the structure of the TWA 7 debris disk, and its position is exactly where we expected to find a planet of this mass," Anne-Marie Lagrange, a researcher at the Observatoire de Paris-PSL and Université Grenoble Alpes in France and lead author of the paper, said in a statement. The discovery is an "exciting step forward in our understanding of planetary systems," said co-author Mathilde Malin, an assistant research associate of Johns Hopkins University and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, in a statement. The finding highlights the Webb telescope's ability to explore previously unseen low-mass planets around nearby stars, according to NASA.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does Freezing Meat ‘Reset' the Expiration Date?
photosiber/Adobe Stock For all the information stuffed into product packaging and nutrition labels, it can be surprisingly hard to know how to navigate basic food safety issues that arise in the kitchen. Like: Does freezing meat and poultry 'reset' the expiration date (a.k.a. the use-by date)? Say, if you buy raw chicken breast that has a use-by date within five days and then freeze it on the fifth, do you have another five days to use it after it thaws—or has the clock already run out? Theoretical as this question might seem, the stakes could be high. If you wait too long after thawing to finish off the meat or poultry, for example, the quality could deteriorate significantly. That's because spoilage bacteria like Pseudomonads, Lactobacillus, and Enterococcus—which love the cool fridge temps—start to grow. Spoilage bacteria generally don't make you sick, but they will probably yuck up your meat, leading to an 'off' smell and taste. Some types of pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria, like Listeria, can fare well in the fridge, too, so it's possible that meat left too long could harbor health risks. That said, the primary concern in this situation isn't foodborne illness, provided the stuff is properly cooked once thawed—rather, it's more of a 'food spoilage issue,' Martin Bucknavage, MS, a senior food safety extension associate at Pennsylvania State University, tells SELF. Not only is spoiled meat and poultry nasty (you don't want a decaying cutlet stinking up your fridge, much less percolating in your GI tract), it also amounts to a waste of money and food, so it's definitely an outcome you want to avoid. Thankfully, with the right knowledge on freezing best practices, you can do just that. First, a quick refresher on freezing: The super-cold temp—freezers should be set to zero degrees Fahrenheit or lower—stalls the growth of bacteria and other organisms. Importantly, it doesn't kill these bugs. Rather, it prevents them from multiplying (and further hurting the quality or safety of the item). Depending on kind and cut, frozen meat and poultry is best if used within 3 to 12 months, but it'll stay safe pretty much indefinitely. With freezing on the table, you no longer have to chuck a, well, package of chuck if your dinner plans change and you don't have time to cook it before its expiration date. It's 'just a great way to save that [item] so you don't have to throw it away,' Bucknavage says. Helpful as it may be, though, freezing is not a miracle worker: Sorry, but it 'doesn't restart the clock' on your products' expiration dates, Darin Detwiler, PhD, a food safety expert and associate teaching professor at Northeastern University's College of Professional Studies, tells SELF. Yes, freezing will halt the progression of bacterial growth in meat and poultry, but once they thaw, that growth will resume. For an item that's frozen just as it's about to expire, that growth is in all likelihood already pretty far advanced (basically, it's 'already on the way to becoming spoiled,' Bucknavage says), so the countdown is well underway—and the item won't last much longer. So that chicken breast we mentioned earlier? If you buy it five days before the use-by date and freeze it on the day it expires, you don't then have another five days to use it after it thaws, because the resumed bacterial growth will take it past the point of no return within that time frame. Once full-blown spoilage sets in, you'll likely notice changes to smell, appearance, and texture. 'It may be grayish and feel slightly slimy to the touch,' Bucknavage says. 'There might be a slight to significant odor.' These signs should signal that the item is no longer fit to eat, but if you somehow miss the signs and chow down anyway, you'd probably note a slightly sour to flat-out rancid taste (gross!). Overall? 'It is not going to be good,' Bucknavage says. Unless your product is already contaminated with Listeria (and you don't cook it well), you probably won't develop an infection or anything like that. But the spoilage bacteria can produce byproducts 'that can upset your stomach,' he explains. For example, Pseudomonads and Lactobacillus yield undesirable chemicals like lactic acid and hydrogen sulfide when allowed to flourish unchecked. So to prevent your thawed meat and poultry from spoiling if you froze them on or around the expiration date, the smartest move is to use such items ASAP. Basically, 'you really want to cook it as soon as you thaw it out,' Bucknavage says—generally, within the day. If you want to be extra careful, shoot for within two hours, as Dr. Detwiler recommends. That said, 'using' doesn't necessarily have to mean eating. If you don't feel like digging in that same day, you can just cook and then refrigerate (or freeze!) the meal so you can enjoy it at a more convenient time. Much like freezing itself, cooking is another ingenious workaround that can help you extend the lifespan of your meat and poultry, since the strong heat kills off lurking bacteria. Just make sure that the internal temp reaches the minimum needed to kill pathogens—140 degrees Fahrenheit for red meat, 160 degrees for ground meat, and 165 degrees for poultry. You can use a food thermometer to check. 'Having a good, accurate thermometer is very important,' since 'you cannot tell the right temperature by look or feel or smell,' Dr. Detwiler says. Make sure to refrigerate leftovers within two hours of cooking. And if you're not able to finish them off within three to four days, you can even pop them in the freezer to buy yourself some extra time! That way, all you'd have to do is thaw, heat, and enjoy—on your own clock. Related: How to 'Fridgescape' to Keep Your Food Safe, Save Money, and Actually Get Organized 8 Things Food Safety Experts Would Never Do in Their Own Kitchens Is It Safe to Put Piping-Hot Food in the Fridge, or Should I Let It Cool Down a Bit First? Get more of SELF's great service journalism delivered right to your inbox. Originally Appeared on Self
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
AGI And AI Superintelligence Are Going To Sharply Hit The Human Ceiling Assumption Barrier
Is there a limit or ceiling to human intelligence and how will that impact AI? In today's column, I examine an unresolved question about the nature of human intelligence, which in turn has a great deal to do with AI, especially regarding achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI) and potentially even reaching artificial superintelligence (ASI). The thorny question is often referred to as the human ceiling assumption. It goes like this. Is there a ceiling or ending point that confines how far human intellect can go? Or does human intellect extend indefinitely and nearly have infinite possibilities? Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). Heading Toward AGI And ASI First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. Human Intellect As A Measuring Stick Have you ever pondered the classic riddle that asks how high is up? I'm sure that you have. Children ask this vexing question of their parents. The usual answer is that up goes to the outer edge of Earth's atmosphere. After hitting that threshold, up continues onward into outer space. Up is either a bounded concept based on our atmosphere or it is a nearly infinite notion that goes as far as the edge of our expanding universe. I bring this riddle to your attention since it somewhat mirrors an akin question about the nature of human intelligence: In other words, the intelligence we exhibit currently is presumably not our upper bound. If you compare our intelligence with that of past generations, it certainly seems relatively apparent that we keep increasing in intelligence on a generational basis. Will those born in the year 2100 be more intelligent than we are now? What about being born in 2200? All in all, most people would speculate that yes, the intelligence of those future generations will be greater than the prevailing intelligence at this time. If you buy into that logic, the up-related aspect rears its thorny head. Think of it this way. The capability of human intelligence is going to keep increasing generationally. At some point, will a generation exist that has capped out? The future generation represents the highest that human intellect can ever go. Subsequent generations will either be of equal human intellect, or less so and not more so. The reason we want to have an answer to that question is that there is a present-time pressing need to know whether there is a limit or not. I've just earlier pointed out that AGI will be on par with human intellect, while ASI will be superhuman intelligence. Where does AGI top out, such that we can then draw a line and say that's it? Anything above that line is going to be construed as superhuman or superintelligence. Right now, using human intellect as a measuring stick is hazy because we do not know how long that line is. Perhaps the line ends at some given point, or maybe it keeps going infinitely. Give that weighty thought some mindful pondering. The Line In The Sand You might be tempted to assume that there must be an upper bound to human intelligence. This intuitively feels right. We aren't at that limit just yet (so it seems!). One hopes that humankind will someday live long enough to reach that outer atmosphere. Since we will go with the assumption of human intelligence as having a topping point, doing so for the sake of discussion, we can now declare that AGI must also have a topping point. The basis for that claim is certainly defensible. If AGI consists of mimicking or somehow exhibiting human intelligence, and if human intelligence meets a maximum, AGI will also inevitably meet that same maximum. That's a definitional supposition. Admittedly, we don't necessarily know yet what the maximum point is. No worries, at least we've landed on a stable belief that there is a maximum. We can then draw our attention toward figuring out where that maximum resides. No need to be stressed by the infinite aspects anymore. Twists And Turns Galore AI gets mired in a controversy associated with the unresolved conundrum underlying a ceiling to human intelligence. Let's explore three notable possibilities. First, if there is a ceiling to human intelligence, maybe that implies that there cannot be superhuman intelligence. Say what? It goes like this. Once we hit the top of human intelligence, bam, that's it, no more room to proceed further upward. Anything up until that point has been conventional human intelligence. We might have falsely thought that there was superhuman intelligence, but it was really just intelligence slightly ahead of conventional intelligence. There isn't any superhuman intelligence per se. Everything is confined to being within conventional intelligence. Thus, any AI that we make will ultimately be no greater than human intelligence. Mull that over. Second, well, if there is a ceiling to human intelligence, perhaps via AI we can go beyond that ceiling and devise superhuman intelligence. That seems more straightforward. The essence is that humans top out but that doesn't mean that AI must also top out. Via AI, we might be able to surpass human intelligence, i.e., go past the maximum limit of human intelligence. Nice. Third, if there isn't any ceiling to human intelligence, we would presumably have to say that superhuman intelligence is included in that infinite possibility. Therefore, the distinction between AGI and ASI is a falsehood. It is an arbitrarily drawn line. Yikes, it is quite a mind-bending dilemma. Without some fixed landing on whether there is a human intelligence cap, the chances of nailing down AGI and ASI remain aloof. We don't know the answer to this ceiling proposition; thus, AI research must make varying base assumptions about the unresolved topic. AI Research Taking Stances AI researchers often take the stance that there must be a maximum level associated with human intellect. They generally accept that there is a maximum even if we cannot prove it. The altogether unknown, but considered plausibly existent limit, becomes the dividing line between AGI and ASI. Once AI exceeds the human intellectual limit, we find ourselves in superhuman territory. In a recently posted paper entitled 'An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security' by Google DeepMind researchers Rohin Shah, Alex Irpan, Alexander Matt Turner, Anna Wang, Arthur Conmy, David Lindner, Jonah Brown-Cohen, Lewis Ho, Neel Nanda, Raluca Ada Popa, Rishub Jain, Rory Greig, Samuel Albanie, Scott Emmons, Sebastian Farquhar, Sébastien Krier, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Sophie Bridgers, Tobi Ijitoye, Tom Everitt, Victoria Krakovna, Vikrant Varma, Vladimir Mikulik, Zachary Kenton, Dave Orr, Shane Legg, Noah Goodman, Allan Dafoe, Four Flynn, and Anca Dragan, arXiv, April 2, 2025, they made these salient points (excerpts): You can see from those key points that the researchers have tried to make a compelling case that there is such a thing as superhuman intellect. The superhuman consists of that which goes beyond the human ceiling. Furthermore, AI won't get stuck at the human intellect ceiling. AI will surpass the human ceiling and proceed into the superhuman intellect realm. Mystery Of Superhuman Intelligence Suppose that there is a ceiling to human intelligence. If that's true, would superhuman intelligence be something entirely different from the nature of human intelligence? In other words, we are saying that human intelligence cannot reach superhuman intelligence. But the AI we are devising seems to be generally shaped around the overall nature of human intelligence. How then can AI that is shaped around human intelligence attain superintelligence when human intelligence cannot apparently do so? Two of the most frequently voiced answers are these possibilities: The usual first response to the exasperating enigma is that size might make the difference. The human brain is approximately three pounds in weight and is entirely confined to the size of our skulls, roughly allowing brains to be about 5.5 inches by 6.5 inches by 3.6 inches in respective dimensions. The human brain consists of around 86 billion neurons and perhaps 1,000 trillion synapses. Human intelligence is seemingly stuck to whatever can happen within those sizing constraints. AI is software and data that runs across perhaps thousands or millions of computer servers and processing units. We can always add more. The size limit is not as constraining as a brain that is housed inside our heads. The bottom line is that the reason we might have AI that exhibits superhuman intelligence is due to exceeding the physical size limitations that human brains have. Advances in hardware would allow us to substitute faster processors and more processors to keep pushing AI onward into superhuman intelligence. The second response is that AI doesn't necessarily need to conform to the biochemical compositions that give rise to human intelligence. Superhuman intelligence might not be feasible with humans due to the brain being biochemically precast. AI can easily be devised and revised to exploit all manner of new kinds of algorithms and hardware that differentiate AI capabilities from human capabilities. Heading Into The Unknown Those two considerations of size and differentiation could also work in concert. It could be that AI becomes superhuman intellectually because of both the scaling aspects and the differentiation in how AI mimics or represents intelligence. Hogwash, some exhort. AI is devised by humans. Therefore, AI cannot do better than humans can do. AI will someday reach the maximum of human intellect and go no further. Period, end of story. Whoa, comes the retort. Think about humankind figuring out how to fly. We don't flap our arms like birds do. Instead, we devised planes. Planes fly. Humans make planes. Ergo, humans can decidedly exceed their own limitations. The same will apply to AI. Humans will make AI. AI will exhibit human intelligence and at some point reach the upper limits of human intelligence. AI will then be further advanced into superhuman intelligence, going beyond the limits of human intelligence. You might say that humans can make AI that flies even though humans cannot do so. A final thought for now on this beguiling topic. Albert Einstein famously said this: 'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.' Quite a cheeky comment. Go ahead and give the matter of AI becoming AGI and possibly ASI some serious deliberation but remain soberly thoughtful since all of humanity might depend on what the answer is.
