SLE patients with renal damage incur higher health care costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and quality of life (QoL) between SLE patients with and without renal damage. METHODS: Seven hundred and fifteen patients were surveyed semi-annually over 4 yrs on health care use and productivity loss and annually on QoL. Cumulative direct and indirect costs (2006 Canadian dollars) and QoL (average annual change in SF-36) were compared between patients with and without renal damage [Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/ACR Damage Index (SLICC/ACR DI)] using simultaneous regressions. RESULTS: At study conclusion, for patients with the renal subscale of the SLICC/ACR DI = 0 (n = 634), 1 (n = 54), 2 (n = 15) and 3 (n = 12), mean 4-yr cumulative direct costs per patient (95% CI) were $20,337 ($18,815, $21,858), $27,869 ($19,230, $36,509), $51,191 ($23,463, $78,919) and $99,544 ($57,102, $141,987), respectively. In a regression where the renal subscale of the SLICC/ACR DI was a single indicator variable, on average (95% CI), each unit increase in renal damage was associated with a 24% (15%, 33%) increase in direct costs. In a regression where each level in the renal subscale was an indicator variable, patients with end-stage renal disease incurred 103% (65%, 141%) higher direct costs than those without renal damage. Cumulative indirect costs and annual change in the SF-36 summary scores did not differ between patients. CONCLUSIONS: SLE patients with renal damage incurred higher direct costs, but did not experience a poorer QoL. QoL may be more influenced by concurrent renal activity than accumulated renal damage, which can occur at any time and patients may gradually habituate to their compromised health state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".