Does Rheumatoid Cachexia Predispose Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis to Osteoporosis and Vertebral Fractures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and risk factors of rheumatoid cachexia (RC) and evaluate its relationship with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures (VF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We enrolled into a cross-sectional study 178 consecutive patients with RA (82.6% women) with a mean age of 54.1 ± 11.5 years (25-82) and who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification of RA. Body composition, lateral VF assessment images, and scans of the lumbar spine and proximal femur were obtained using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. RC was defined by a fat-free mass index below the 10th percentile and a fat mass index above the 25th percentile compared with a reference population. VF were defined using Genant semiquantitative approach. RESULTS: RC was observed in 96 patients (53.9%) and osteoporosis in 52 patients (29.2%). Comparison between women with and without RC showed that women with RC had a longer disease duration, higher disease activity variables, higher steroid cumulative dose, and higher proportion of patients with erosive arthritis. Women with RC had lower total hip bone mineral density (BMD) and T score than women without RC, while comparison in men found only body mass index to be significantly lower in men with RC. Regression logistic analysis showed an independent and significant association between RC and age and disease activity in women. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that half of the patients with RA may have RC, a condition that was significantly associated with disease activity and low hip BMD, but not with VF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".