Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes in Aboriginal Patients in Canada: A Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort Study Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health inequities exist in chronic diseases for Aboriginal people. This study compared early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presentation, treatment, and outcomes between Aboriginal and white patients in a large Canadian cohort study. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective multicenter early RA study, were analyzed for participants who self-identified as Aboriginal or white ethnicity. Disease characteristics at presentation, prognostic factors, frequency of remission, and disease-modifying therapy strategies were contrasted between population groups. Linear mixed models were used to estimate rates of change for disease activity measures over a 5-year period. RESULTS: At baseline, 2,173 participants (100 Aboriginal and 2,073 white) had similar mean ± SD symptom duration (179 ± 91 days), 28-joint Disease Activity Scores (DAS28; 4.87 ± 1.48), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.88 ± 0.68) scores. Factors associated with poor prognosis were more frequently present in Aboriginal participants, but disease-modifying therapy selection and frequency of therapy escalation was similar between the 2 groups. DAS28 remission was achieved less frequently in Aboriginal than in white participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.39 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.62]). Results were primarily driven by slower improvement in swollen joint counts and nonsignificant improvement in patient global scores in Aboriginal participants. Pain levels remained higher in Aboriginal patients. CONCLUSION: Aboriginal early RA patients experienced worse disease outcomes than their white counterparts. This may reflect unmeasured biologic differences and/or disparities in prognostic factors informed by inequities in determinants of health. The appropriateness of current treatment strategies applied in different contexts should be considered.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".