Identification of modifiable work‐related factors that influence the risk of work disability in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define work-related factors associated with increased risk of work disability (WD) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to all RA patients who used a province-wide arthritis treatment program between 1991 and 1998 (n = 1,824). The association between risk factors and WD (defined as no paid work due to RA for at least 6 months) was assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis, controlling for significant sociodemographic and disease-related variables. RESULTS: Of the original 1,824 patients, 581 were eligible and responded to the questionnaire. Work survival analysis revealed a steady rate of WD starting early, with 7.5%, 18%, and 27% work disabled at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Significant determinants in multiple logistic regression were physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), pain (visual analog scale), and 6 work-related factors: self employment, workstation modification, work importance, family support toward employment, commuting difficulty, and comfort telling coworkers about RA. CONCLUSION: Work disability occurs early in RA. Novel work-related factors were identified, which are potentially modifiable, to help RA patients stay employed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".