Obesity Is Common in Axial Spondyloarthritis and Is Associated with Poor Clinical Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity in a large cohort of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in comparison with the general population. To explore the relationship of body mass index (BMI) with clinical outcome in axSpA. METHODS: Patients from the Groningen Leeuwarden Axial SpA cohort who visited the outpatient clinic in 2011/2012 were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Body weight, height, disease activity, physical function, and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. Patients were divided into normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m(2)), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to < 30 kg/m(2)), and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)). BMI data for the general population in the same demographic region, matched for age and sex, were obtained from the LifeLines Cohort Study. RESULTS: Of the 461 patients with axSpA, 37% were overweight and 22% were obese. In the LifeLines cohort (n = 136,577), 43% were overweight and 15% were obese. Overweight and obese patients were older, had longer symptom duration, and had more comorbidities, especially hypertension. Further, obese patients had significantly higher disease activity, worse physical function, and worse QoL than overweight and normal weight patients (mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 4.5, 3.5, 3.8; mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score 2.8, 2.2, 2.3; median C-reactive protein 5, 3, 3 mg/l; median erythrocyte sedimentation rate 13, 8, 8 mm/h; median Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index 5.2, 2.9, 2.9; median Ankylosing Spondylitis QoL Questionnaire 8, 4, 5, respectively). After adjustment for potential confounders, obesity proved to be an independent predictor of worse clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: In this large observational cohort study, obesity is more common in axSpA than in the general population and it is associated with worse clinical outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".