Gender differences in functional limitations among Canadians with arthritis: the role of disease duration and comorbidity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanisms underlying gender disparities in functional limitations among people with arthritis remain unclear. This study examined gender differences in the relationship between disease duration and comorbidity and functional limitations among people with arthritis. DATA AND METHODS: Data were from the arthritis component of the 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada. People were considered to have functional limitations if they reported that arthritis limits them "a lot" in activities of daily living. Those with no functional limitations were the reference group. Gender-stratified weighted multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In a fully adjusted multivariate analysis, only among women was time elapsed since the arthritis diagnosis associated with functional limitations. Disabling and life-threatening chronic conditions were associated with functional limitations in both genders. Among men, obesity and low household income were associated with higher odds of functional limitations, while living in British Columbia was associated with decreased odds. For women, smoking, not engaging in physical activity, residing in a non-Atlantic province, and having excess weight increased the odds of functional limitations, while habitual alcohol drinking decreased the odds. INTERPRETATION: Gender differences in the risks of reporting functional limitations were significant. These differences appear to be driven by duration of having arthritis, and disparities in health behavioural factors, household income and region of residence. The association between chronic conditions and functional limitations was similar for men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".