Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in the 2000s Have Equal Disability and Pain Despite Less Disease Activity Compared with the 1990s: Data from the BARFOT Study over 8 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes over the first 8 years in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recruited in the 1990s and the 2000s, with a special focus on functional disability and its possible predictors. METHODS: Data were acquired from 1938 patients with early RA (American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria) included in the BARFOT study, who had completed the 8-year followup. The patients were divided into 2 cohorts: cohort 1 (n = 928, 68% women) included from 1992 to 1999 and cohort 2 (n = 1010, 70% women) included from 2000 to 2006. Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), visual analog scale pain, and radiographs of hands and feet scored by the van der Heijde modified Sharp method were assessed during the 8 years. Longitudinal data analyses were performed using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Despite more active medical treatment during the 2000s, the courses of HAQ and pain showed no difference between the cohorts during followup, in either women or in men, with significantly higher levels in women compared with men. However, as expected, disease activity decreased more over time in cohort 2 compared with cohort 1, for both sexes, and women in cohort 2 had less radiographic progression compared with cohort 1. HAQ was associated with DAS28, pain, radiological scores, and sex in both cohorts, and in cohort 2 also with age and smoking. CONCLUSION: Patients included in the 2000s had lower disease activity, but not less activity limitation and pain over 8 years of followup despite more active treatment. Pain, aging, and smoking might explain why patients included in the 2000s still had the same disability levels as those included in the 1990s.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".