Risk of work loss due to illness or disability in patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of work loss due to illness or disability in a cohort of employed persons with OA compared with matched non-OA individuals. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort analysis using the last six cycles of the Canadian longitudinal National Population Health Survey from 2000 to 2010. OA cases and up to four age- and sex-matched non-OA individuals were selected. Discrete time hazard regression models were used to estimate the hazard of work loss due to illness or disability. To analyse the effect of a self-reported OA measure on the outcome, we performed a sensitivity analyses for case selection. RESULTS: From 7273 employed individuals between the ages of 20 and 70 years in the National Population Health Survey, 659 OA cases were selected and matched to 2144 non-OA individuals. The proportion of OA cases who experienced work loss due to illness or disability during the follow-up period was 12.6%, compared with 9.3% for non-OA individuals (P < 0.001). OA cases had a 90% [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90 (95% CI 1.36, 3.23)] higher hazard of work loss due to illness or disability compared with their matched non-OA individuals after adjusting for sociodemographic, health and work-related status. The adjusted HRs were 1.61 (95% CI 1.13, 2.30) and 2.04 (95% CI 1.74, 4.75) for females and males, respectively. CONCLUSION: OA is independently associated with an increased risk of work loss due to illness or disability. Given the high prevalence of OA in the population of working age, future research may wish to investigate ways to improve occupational participation among OA patients.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".