Increased risk of vertebral fracture in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and risk of vertebral fracture has been reported by several observational studies. However, there is no higher-level evidence study, such as meta-analysis, that has investigated the relationship, and its mechanisms are not yet fully clear. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a summary of an observational study of the relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of vertebral fractures.Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases (up to August 1, 2016). We included published observational studies (cohort or case-control design) evaluating the relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of vertebral fractures. Two reviewers searched and abstracted the data independently. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used throughout the whole analysis.Seven observational studies (2 cohort studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and 3 case-control studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the pooled RR of vertebral fracture for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis was 2.34 (95% CI 2.05-2.63, I = 35.4%, P for heterogeneity = 0.16). Further subgroup analysis by sex showed that the pooled RRs for both women and men, and only women were 2.14 (95% CI 1.47-2.8, I = 48.5%, P for heterogeneity = 0.12) and 2.39 (95% CI 2.07-2.70, I = 34%, P for heterogeneity = 0.22), respectively. Subgroup analysis by study design showed that the pooled RRs for cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and case-control studies were 2.31 (95% CI 1.95-2.67, I = 4.8%, P for heterogeneity = 0.31), 1.89 (95% CI 1.01-2.77, I = 72.1%, P for heterogeneity = 0.06), and 2.62 (95% CI 2.04-3.91, I = 26.1%, P for heterogeneity = 0.26), respectively.Based on our meta-analysis, rheumatoid arthritis should be regarded as an independent risk factor of vertebral fracture. Further studies are needed to institute prevention and treatment strategies.
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".