Contributions of Familial Rheumatoid Arthritis or Lupus and Environmental Factors to Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Women: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the contributions of familial rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or lupus and environmental factors to the risk of RA. METHODS: Among 121,700 women in the Nurses' Health Study, 65,457 provided data on familial RA/lupus. Among these, 493 RA cases (301 seropositive and 192 seronegative) were validated. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for RA comparing those with and without familial RA/lupus, adjusting for environmental factors (smoking, alcohol, body mass index [BMI], parity, breastfeeding, menopause, hormone use, early menarche, and menstrual regularity) using Cox proportional hazards models. Population attributable risks (PARs) for RA within this cohort were calculated for familial RA/lupus, smoking, alcohol, BMI, parity, and breastfeeding. RESULTS: Familial RA/lupus was significantly associated with RA (HR 3.67), seropositive RA (HR 3.90), and seronegative RA (HR 3.95). After adjusting for environmental factors, familial RA/lupus was significantly associated with RA (HR 3.59, 95% confidence interval 2.94-4.37). Smoking >10 pack-years, overweight, BMI, and premenopause status remained significantly associated with RA after adjusting for familial RA/lupus. For RA in this cohort, the PAR for smoking, BMI, alcohol, parity, or breastfeeding collectively was 41%; the PAR due to heredity from familial RA/lupus was 21%. CONCLUSION: In this large, prospective cohort, women with familial RA/lupus had a 4-fold increased risk for RA that remained significant after adjusting for environmental factors. A large proportion of RA risk was attributable to environmental factors, even among those with familial RA/lupus.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".