Cited by 88Indoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureAsthma and respiratory diseasesAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization

Distribution and determinants of mouse allergen exposure in low-income New York City apartments

Open access
Chew, Ginger L, Perzanowski, Matthew S, Miller, Rachel L, Correa, Juan C, Hoepner, Lori A, Jusino, Carlos M, Becker, Mark G, Kinney, Patrick L·2003·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Previous studies of mouse allergens and laboratory-animal-worker-related allergy and asthma suggest that quantifying mouse allergen levels in homes could augment our understanding of inner-city asthma. We hypothesized that levels of mouse allergen in inner-city homes would be related to certain household characteristics. Dust samples were collected from the kitchens and beds of 221 mothers enrolled in a prospective birth cohort study, 92 of African American and 129 of Dominican ethnicity. Samples were analyzed for mouse urinary protein. The geometric mean for kitchen samples was 4.6 micro g/g [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 3.2-6.5] and for bed samples was 0.9 micro g/g (95% CI, 0.8-1.1). The variables associated with mouse allergen levels in the home were frequency of mouse sightings, use of traps or pesticides for mice, presence of holes in ceilings or walls, absence of a cat, and living in a building with fewer than eight floors. Statistically significant neighborhood differences in levels of mouse allergen and report of rodents in the home were also observed. In conclusion, mouse allergen was prevalent among inner-city apartments, and the positive predictive value of self-reported frequent mouse sightings was high (90% for kitchens). However, high levels of mouse allergen were also found in many homes where mothers reported never seeing mice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.6124

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Poorly maintained housing, indicated by wall and door cracks, mouse sightings, and cockroach presence, is associated with higher mouse allergen levels.

    “Poorly maintained housing, characterized by wall and door cracks, sighting of mice, and the presence of cockroaches has been linked to increased levels of mouse allergens (32,43,44).”

    From Indoor Allergen Interventions in Homes and Schools for Managing Asthma (2025) · cites this paper as [43]

    The abstract (p. 1348) links mouse sightings and holes in ceilings or walls to higher mouse allergen levels. It does not identify door cracks as a measured characteristic. The Discussion (p. 1350) reports no association between cockroach allergen and mouse allergen in bedrooms, so this paper does not support the claimed link with cockroach presence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chew, G. L., Perzanowski, M. S., Miller, R. L., Correa, J. C., Hoepner, L. A., Jusino, C. M., Becker, M. G., & Kinney, P. L.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
111
Issue
10
Pages
1348-1351
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1999565260
Cited by
88
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SUNY Digital Repository Support (State University of New York System) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r21es009142-04)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES 09089, ES09600, ES 09142, P30ES009089)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 00645, M01RR000645)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Keywords
mouse allergen, house dust, inner-city asthma, low-income housing, apartment buildings, rodent infestation, household characteristics, African American mothers, birth cohort, urinary protein, neighborhood differences, New York City
MeSH terms
Allergens, Animals, Black or African American, Cockroaches, Dominican Republic, Dust, Environmental Exposure, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Female, Housing, Humans, New York City, Poverty, Pregnancy, Cohort Studies, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review