The Influence of Individual Joint Impairment on Functional Disability in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using a Large Observational Database of Japanese Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the influence of individual joint impairment on functional capacity through a retrospective study with a 3-year interval, using a large cohort of Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Subjects included 3457 patients with RA who participated in a large observational cohort study in both April 2004 and April 2007; 43 joints were assessed and classified into 10 joint areas. Impairment of each joint area was scored based on the presence of swelling or tenderness: score 0 (no swelling or tenderness in either joint), score 1 (swelling or tenderness in a unilateral joint), and score 2 (swelling or tenderness in bilateral joints). Score change was defined as the difference between scores from 2004 and 2007. The Japanese validated version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire is the J-HAQ; ΔJ-HAQ score was determined by subtracting J-HAQ score in 2007 from that in 2004. The relationship between score change and ΔJ-HAQ score, and the effect of joint impairment on ΔJ-HAQ score were assessed. RESULTS: Major joint areas that contributed to ΔJ-HAQ score included the wrist (31%), shoulder (21%), knee (13%), and ankle (10%). The shoulder, wrist, knee, and ankle in the worsening group were associated with a J-HAQ score increase of 0.13 to 0.18 compared to the improvement group. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that impairment of the shoulder, wrist, knee, and ankle significantly affects functional capacity in patients with RA. Care of these joints is suggested to be especially important for better functional outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".