Relationship of Focal Erosions, Bone Mineral Density, and Parathyroid Hormone in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship among focal bone erosions and bone mineral density (BMD), 25(OH) vitamin D (25OHD), and parathyroid hormone (PTH) values in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The study included 1191 RA patients (1014 women, 177 men, mean age 58.9 ± 11.1 yrs) participating in a multicenter, cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Radiographic evidence of typical bony erosions on hands or forefeet was found in 64.1% of patients. In those with bone erosions as compared to those without, mean BMD Z score values were significantly lower at both the spine (-0.74 ± 1.19 vs -0.46 ± 1.31; p = 0.05) and the hip (-0.72 ± 1.07 vs -0.15 ± 1.23; p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients not taking vitamin D supplements, PTH levels were significantly higher in those with erosive arthritis (25.9 ± 14.0 vs 23.1 ± 11.6 pg/ml; p = 0.01); whereas the 25OHD concentrations were very similar in the 2 groups. The mean differences for BMD and PTH among the erosive and nonerosive RA remained statistically significant when values were simultaneously adjusted for all disease and mineral metabolism factors (i.e., age, sex, menopause, disease duration, Disease Activity Score 28-joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire, activities of daily living, Steinbrocker functional state, glucocorticoid therapy, body weight, and bisphosphonate treatment). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the presence of bone erosions in RA correlates with low BMD levels and high PTH levels, and that these associations are independent of the degree of functional impairment and other common determinants of bone mass and mineral metabolism in adults with RA. These findings suggest that treatments to prevent bone loss or suppress PTH levels might positively affect the progression of bone erosions in RA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".