Annual consultation incidence of osteoarthritis estimated from population-based health care data in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the consultation incidence of OA using population-based health care data in England and compare OA incidence figures with those derived in other countries. METHODS: A population-based health care database (Consultations in Primary Care Archive) in England was used to derive the consultation incidence of OA (overall and by joint site) using the maximum available run-in period method. These estimates, and their distribution by age and sex, were compared with those published from population-based health care databases in Canada, the Netherlands and Spain. A novel age-stratified run-in period method was then used to investigate whether the consultation incidence has been increasing over time in younger adults. RESULTS: The annual consultation incidence of OA (any joint) was 8.6/1000 persons ≥15 years of age (95% CI 7.9, 9.3) [6.3 (95% CI 5.5, 7.1) in men and 10.8 (95% CI 9.8, 12.0) in women]. Incidence increased sharply between 45 and 64 years of age, peaking at 75-84 years. The joint-specific incidence was 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.7), 3.5 (95% CI 3.1, 3.9) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1, 1.6) for hip OA, knee OA and hand OA, respectively. The estimates and their distribution by age and sex were broadly consistent with international estimates. Between 2003 and 2010, incidence in those aged 35-44 years increased from 0.3 to 2.0/1000 persons. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed cases of OA in England occur in 9 in 1000 at-risk adults each year, similar to other international estimates. Although lower, the consultation incidence proportion in younger adults appears to have increased in the past decade.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".