Disease impact of hand OA compared with hip, knee and generalized disease in specialist rheumatology health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare disease impact in patients with hand OA with those with hip, knee and generalized disease. METHODS: Patients with OA referred to a specialized rheumatology clinic (408 patients, 86% women) were included in a cross-sectional study. They were examined by a rheumatologist and classified into primary hand, hip, knee and/or generalized (more than two joint localizations) OA. Patient-reported disease impact was collected on numeric rating scales (pain, fatigue), Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (emotional distress), Western Ontario and McMaster and Australian/Canadian Hand OA indexes (disease-specific functioning), Short Form 36 (generic health-related quality of life) and a comorbidity checklist. RESULTS: Considerable disease impact was detected across all localizations: patients scored >5 on pain (range 0-10), had on average two comorbidities and scored >1.5 on emotional distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25, range 1-4). Patients with hand OA scored poor on disease-specific functioning of the lower extremities, and patients with lower extremity OA also scored poor on disease-specific hand functioning. Patients with hand OA scored better on pain (P = 0.001, one-way analyses of variance) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component (P < 0.001), whereas no major differences were observed for the mental component (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: OA patients referred to specialist care reported considerable levels of disease impact across localizations. Regardless of functional impairments related to the primary OA localization, patients generally reported high levels of impaired disease-specific functioning at other sites. In the management of OA clinicians should also consider functioning in joint sites other than the primary OA localization. Trial registration. Current controlled trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN25778426.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".