Work Disability in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of work disability in Spanish patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to identify factors related to it. METHODS: A cross-sectional study based on data from Regisponser (National Spanish Registry of Patients with Spondyloarthropathy). Demographic and disease-related variables were collected. AS patients were classified as work-disabled according to the Spanish Social Security System criteria. Variables that discriminated between AS patients with and those without work disability were identified using chi-square test or unpaired t test when appropriate. Multiple logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: In total 699 AS patients, age 48.7 +/- SD 12.7 years and with disease duration 14.1 +/- 10.1 years, were analyzed; 179 patients (25.6%) had permanent work disability. Several variables had significantly different values in patients with compared to those without work disability. In the regression model (pseudo R(2) = 0.26, p < 0.0001), age (p = 0.001), sex (p = 0.04), disease duration (p = 0.006), total Bath AS Radiological Index (p = 0.007), Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI; p = 0.007), and chest expansion (p = 0.03) retained an independent association with work disability. When BASFI was excluded from the model the independent association with sex did not remain, and a significant association with finger to floor distance was found (p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of permanent work disability in Spanish patients with AS is significant, and the main factors related to it are age, disease duration, structural damage, and physical functioning. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".