Participation in Leisure Activities among Canadian Children with Arthritis. A Wakeup Call for Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) have led to improved patient outcomes1. Canadian researchers have demonstrated that patients with JIA (except rheumatoid factor-positive polyarticular JIA) have a 70–90% chance of attaining inactive disease by 2 years postdiagnosis2. Inactive disease was defined using modified Wallace criteria3. They also determined that all but those with polyarthritis have ∼50% probability of remission within 5 years of diagnosis. Patients had to demonstrate inactive disease after stopping medication for at least 12 months to be considered in remission2. While achieving such remission is a critical goal, how well does this translate into “good health” overall? The World Health Organization defines “health” as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity4. So, are children with JIA healthy? Research suggests that those affected by JIA are less active and more easily fatigued than many of their peers. They have lower aerobic and anaerobic capacity5. Muscle weakness and anemia contribute to reduced fitness, but deconditioning from inadequate physical activity probably plays a greater role. Decreased bone mineral composition is also prevalent, which may relate to disease severity, corticosteroid use, physical inactivity, and poor calcium intake6. Patients with JIA participate less in physical education and sports because of disease symptom severity, side effects of treatment, or fears that exercise may worsen their disease7. Many with lower extremity arthritis also have impaired balance, which may affect their ability to play sports8. Delayed motor development can also affect sport readiness, as has been demonstrated in preschoolers with JIA9. … Address correspondence to Dr. LeBlanc. E-mail: Claire.Leblanc{at}MUHC.MCGILL.CA
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".