Consultation With an Arthritis Specialist for Children With Suspected Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe consultation with an arthritis specialist because of suspected new-onset juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) and to determine factors associated with prompt consultation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Physician reimbursement administrative data were obtained for all children aged 16 years or younger in the Province of Québec (Canada). PARTICIPANTS: Suspected new-onset cases of JRA in 2000 were defined by a physician visit because of JRA, providing there had been no such claims in the preceding 3 years. MAIN EXPOSURE: First JRA diagnosis made by a non-arthritis specialist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First consultation with an arthritis specialist subsequent to diagnosis by a non-arthritis specialist and time to first consultation with an arthritis specialist. RESULTS: Of 352 children and adolescents with suspected new-onset JRA identified by non-arthritis specialists, 159 (45.2%) were subsequently seen by an arthritis specialist. Mean (SD) time to consultation for those seen was 115.3 (213.8) days (median, 28 days). Younger children were more likely to obtain care from an arthritis specialist compared with those having JRA first diagnosed by a general practitioner. CONCLUSION: Most patients with suspected new-onset JRA do not obtain prompt care from an arthritis specialist. Further research and action should focus on this issue so that outcomes may be optimized.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".