The Epidemiology of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic assessments of sufficiently large populations are required in order to obtain robust estimates of disease prevalence and incidence, particularly when exploring the influence of various factors (age, sex, calendar time). We undertook this study to describe the epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the past 15 years. METHODS: We used the Ontario Rheumatoid Arthritis administrative Database (ORAD), a validated population-based research database of all Ontarians with RA. The ORAD records were linked with census data to calculate crude and age and sex-standardized prevalence and incidence rates from 1996 to 2010. Vital statistics were used to estimate annual all-cause mortality during the study period. RESULTS: As of 2010, there were 97,499 Ontarians with RA, corresponding to a cumulative prevalence of 0.9%. Age and sex-standardized RA prevalence increased steadily over time from 473 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 469-478) per 100,000 population (0.49%) in 1996 to 784 (95% CI 779-789) per 100,000 population (0.9%) in 2010. Age and sex-standardized incidence per 100,000 population ranged from 62 (95% CI 60-63) in 1996 to 54 (95% CI 52-55) in 2010. All-cause mortality decreased by a relative 21.4% since 1996. CONCLUSION: Over a 15-year period, we observed an increase in RA prevalence over time. This rise may be attributed to the increasing time to ascertain cases (which may have been latent in the population during earlier years of the study), increasing survival, and/or an increase in the aging background population. Incidence appears to be stable.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it