Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The cost of work disability due to rheumatoid arthritis is substantial to both individuals and society. Approximately one third of people with rheumatoid arthritis will leave employment prematurely. Several studies over the past two decades have identified risk factors for work disability, and recent literature suggests increasing interest in ways to assess work limitations and offer interventions to prevent work loss. RECENT FINDINGS: Work disability results from a complex interaction of characteristics of individuals, the nature of their work, and their environment, including the physical workplace, policies related to work accommodation, and interpersonal relationships. Practitioners need tools to help identify patients experiencing limitations in the workplace and at risk for permanent work disability. Two new tools show promise in this area. Although there is general agreement that vocational assessment and intervention should occur early in the course of rheumatoid arthritis, evidence for vocational rehabilitation is sadly lacking. A recent systematic review identified only six studies, all uncontrolled, but suggestive of beneficial effects. SUMMARY: Assessment of possible work limitations and potential for vocational rehabilitation should be considered in the evaluation of employed patients and those wishing to work. Further development and evaluation of work retention and return-to-work programs for people with rheumatoid arthritis is required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".