Has the Severity of Rheumatoid Arthritis at Presentation Diminished Over Time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the pattern of disease severity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at presentation to the Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) over 20 years. METHODS: NOAR is a primary-care-based cohort of patients with recent-onset inflammatory polyarthritis. At baseline, subjects are assessed and examined by a research nurse. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) is administered and the DAS28 (28-joint Disease Activity Score) is calculated. Information is collected on disease-modifying antirheumatic drug exposure. In this study, patients (symptom duration of < 2 years at baseline) were grouped into 4 cohorts (Cohort 1: 1990-1994; Cohort 2: 1995-1999; Cohort 3: 2000-2004; Cohort 4: 2005-2008). The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) 2010 criteria for RA were applied retrospectively at baseline. Regression analyses were used to examine whether calendar year of presentation to NOAR was associated with baseline HAQ and DAS28 scores. Potential confounders included age at symptom onset, sex, rheumatoid factor, and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity. RESULTS: A total of 1724 patients met the ACR/EULAR 2010 RA criteria at baseline. Unadjusted mean DAS28 scores decreased over time. Calendar year of presentation to NOAR was significantly associated with lower DAS28 scores over time [Y = 4.51 + (-0.56 × year) + (0.44 × year(2))]. Although unadjusted median HAQ scores increased over time, calendar year of presentation to NOAR was not significantly associated with HAQ scores [Y = (1.1) + (0.023 × year) + (0.05 × year(2))]. Similar results were observed in each subpopulation of patients. CONCLUSION: While baseline disease activity has lessened slightly over time, there has been no improvement in baseline levels of functional disability.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".