Estimating Indirect Costs in Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the indirect costs associated with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) compared with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and community controls. METHODS: Data were obtained from 84 women patients with pSS as part of a study to develop a systemic activity measure, from 87 consecutive women patients with RA attending a hospital clinic, and from 96 women community controls on a general practice list. A modified economic component of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire was used to assess lost productivity. RESULTS: Using a conservative model, the estimated total annual indirect costs (95% CI) were 7677 pound sterling (5560 pound sterling, 9794 pound sterling) for pSS, 10,444 pound sterling (8206 pound sterling, 12,681 pound sterling) for RA, and 892 pound sterling (307 pound sterling, 1478 pound sterling) for controls. Using a model that maximizes the estimates, the equivalent figures were 13,502 pound sterling (9542 pound sterling, 17,463 pound sterling), 17,070 pound sterling (13,112 pound sterling, 21,028 pound sterling), and 3382 pound sterling (2187 pound sterling, 4578 pound sterling), respectively. These were all significantly greater at p < 0.001 for patient groups than for the control group. CONCLUSION: pSS is associated with significantly increased indirect costs equivalent to 69%-83% of that for patients with RA. This needs to be taken into account when evaluating the overall economic consequences of pSS.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".