The Relationship Between Cognitive Function and Physical Function in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between cognitive impairment and functional limitations and disability in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Individuals from a longitudinal cohort study of RA participated in study visits that included physical, psychosocial, and biological metrics. Cognitive function was assessed using a battery of 12 standardized neuropsychological measures yielding 16 indices covering a range of cognitive domains. On each test, subjects were classified as "impaired" if they performed 1 SD below age-based population norms. Total cognitive function scores were calculated by summing the number of tests on which individuals were classified as "impaired" (higher scores = greater impairment). Performance-based and self-reported functional limitations were assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), respectively. Self-reported disability was measured with the Valued Life Activities (VLA) scale. Multiple regression analyses controlling for sex, race, education, cardiovascular comorbidity, disease duration, disease severity, and depression were conducted to identify whether cognitive impairment was independently associated with physical function difficulties. RESULTS: There were 122 subjects with mean (SD) age of 58.4 (± 10.8) years; 62% were female and 80% were white. In multivariate regression models, total cognitive function score was significantly associated with greater functional limitations (SPPB: β = -0.24, p = 0.014; HAQ: β = 0.24, p = 0.003) but not with disability (VLA: β = 0.10, p = 0.207). CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment was significantly associated with greater functional limitations in patients with RA, suggesting that cognitive impairment may play a role in poor functional status in persons with 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".