Cognitive Impairment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not commonly associated with central nervous system and brain changes. However, a number of studies have reported high rates of cognitive impairment in adults with RA. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and explore the rates and types of cognitive impairment in RA. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published between 1994 and 2016, to identify studies that have included: adults with RA; standardized neuropsychological tests; and sufficient information to ascertain the relationship between cognitive impairment and demographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Of 1,980 titles, 75 were retained at the abstract level, 36 at the full-text level, and 15 studies in the final review. These were evaluated using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the findings were synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Ten of 15 studies compared RA to other clinical groups and/or a control group. Based on summed effect size analyses, individuals with RA significantly underperformed on cognitive function tests compared to the control groups, particularly on verbal function, memory, and attention. Less clear differences were found between RA and other clinical groups. Some demographic (age and education), clinical (disease activity), and psychological (depression) factors were associated with cognitive impairment, but inconsistently so across studies. A number of limitations were identified: small and predominantly female samples, limited cognitive domain inclusion, lack of study details, and management of confounding variables. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of cognitive impairment in adults with RA. Further studies are needed to confirm prevalence rates and examine potential mechanisms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".