A meta-analysis of the incidence of malignancy in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The risk of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised some concern, particularly with immunosuppressive approaches to disease management. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis characterizing the associated risk of overall malignancy and four site-specific malignancies (lymphoma, lung, colorectal, and breast cancer) in patients with RA. A Medline search from 1990 to 2007 was conducted using specified search terms and predefined inclusion criteria for identification of relevant observational studies that provide estimates of relative risk of malignancy associated with RA. Study-specific estimates of the relative risk, as measured by standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and estimated in comparison with the general population, were combined using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 21 publications were identified, of which 13 reported the SIR for overall malignancy, 14 for lymphoma, 10 for colorectal, 12 for lung, and 9 for breast cancer. Compared with the general population, the overall SIR estimates suggest that RA patients have approximately a two-fold increase in lymphoma risk (SIR 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80 to 2.39) and greater risk of Hodgkin than non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The risk of lung cancer was also increased with an SIR of 1.63 (95% CI 1.43 to 1.87). In contrast, a decrease in risk was observed for colorectal (SIR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90) and breast (SIR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.90) cancer. The SIR for overall malignancy was 1.05 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). CONCLUSION: Patients with RA appear to be at higher risk of lymphoma and lung cancer and potentially decreased risk for colorectal and breast cancer compared with the general population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it