Analysis of the Effect of the Oral Contraceptive Pill on Clinical Outcomes in Women with Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are unexplained sex-specific changes in the clinical expression of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We sought to examine the potential effect of exogenous estrogen in the form of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) on AS initiation and severity. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of women with AS from the membership of the Spondylitis Association of America. Measures of disease severity included use of biological agents and hip replacement surgery, while Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores served as a surrogate marker of disability. Information was obtained using a patient questionnaire on patient demographics, OCP use, pregnancy history, AS duration, medication use, and hip replacement. RESULTS: There were 571 women with AS who participated in our study, consisting of 448 OCP ever-users and 123 non-OCP users. The mean age of OCP users was 42.7 yrs (± 11.5) and of non-OCP users, 48.4 yrs (± 12.1). No difference was noted in the age at initial onset of back pain. However, OCP users were significantly younger at the time of diagnosis of AS (36.5 yrs vs 39.1 yrs, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or opioid use, BASFI scores, pregnancy complications, or hip surgery. CONCLUSION: The use of exogenous estrogens in the form of OCP is not associated with a measurable effect on initiation or severity of AS. Biologic and social factors may contribute to earlier diagnosis of AS in OCP users. This is the largest study to date investigating the potential effect of exogenous estrogens in women with AS.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".