Association of pruritus with quality of life and disability in systemic sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the association of pruritus, which is present in almost half of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma), with quality of life (QOL) and disability. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of pruritus with QOL and disability in SSc. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, multicenter study of 578 SSc patients ≥1 year post-enrollment in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry. Patients reported whether they experienced pruritus during the past month on most days and underwent clinical histories and medical examinations. QOL was measured using the mental and physical component summary scores of the Short Form 36, and disability was measured with the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. The association of pruritus with QOL and disability was estimated using linear regression, controlling for sociodemographic and disease variables. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients (43%) reported pruritus on most days. Patients with pruritus had significantly worse mental (Hedges's g = -0.43; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.59, -0.26) and physical function (Hedges's g = -0.51; 95% CI -0.68, -0.34) and greater disability (Hedges's g = 0.46; 95% CI 0.29, 0.63) than patients without pruritus. In multivariate analyses, controlling for age, sex, marital status, education, disease duration, skin score, number of tender joints, gastrointestinal symptoms, breathing problems, Raynaud's phenomenon, and finger ulcers, pruritus was independently associated with mental (P = 0.017) and physical function (P = 0.003), but not disability (P = 0.112). CONCLUSION: Pruritus is common and associated with QOL in SSc. More attention to pruritus in SSc is needed, including its measurement, etiology, trajectory, and potential methods for intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".