MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2545603891 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.161025

Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

2016· letter· en· W2545603891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric L. Matteson, Rekha Mankad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFramingham Risk ScoreInternal medicineRheumatoid arthritisDyslipidemiaCohortDiseaseMyocardial infarctionRisk assessmentPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including peripheral vascular disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure compared to the general population1,2. The absolute CV risk is estimated to be up to 2-fold increased1,2. The risk is increased because of chronic, systemic inflammation, as well as premature atherosclerosis. In addition to the risk inherent to the underlying disease, conventional risk factors are major contributors to the increase in recurrence of CVD, including dyslipidemia, hypertension (HTN), obesity, smoking, and diabetes3. In this edition of The Journal , Barber, et al report on the experience of using CV risk indicators in clinical practice4. In 2 cohorts of patients, 1 in which patients enrolled into an early RA disease clinic and the other where patients enrolled into a biologic registry, the authors report on the frequencies with which CVD indicators are assessed. These are summarized in a baseline 10-year Framingham Risk Score for those patients whose risk is identified by the Framingham Risk Score, age 30–74 years, and not taking a baseline statin. As anticipated, patients in the biologics cohort generally had more active disease, had worse functional status, were more likely to have erosive disease, and had extraarticular disease. The quality indicators assessed as CVD risk factors in the study included evidence of discussion of increased CV risk with the patient, formal CV risk assessment, assessment of smoking status and offer of smoking cessation counseling, screening for HTN and communication of HTN findings to the patient’s primary care provider, measurement of lipid profile, screening for diabetes, exercise counseling, and body mass index screening and lifestyle counseling, as well as documented attempts to reduce glucocorticoid usage and communication of the … Address correspondence to Dr. E.L. Matteson, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St., South West, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA; E-mail: matteson.eric{at}mayo.edu

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→