MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888357387 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12320

Prevalence of rheumatoid cachexia in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2018· review· en· W2888357387 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulHospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegreFundação Instituto de Pesquisas EconômicasCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisCachexiaMeta-analysisWeight lossSystematic reviewInternal medicineMEDLINEPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineObesityCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low muscle mass occurs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis without weight loss; this condition is referred as rheumatoid cachexia. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the rheumatoid cachexia prevalence. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies published in English, between 1994 and 2016, was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and other relevant sources. Search strategies were based on pre-defined keywords and medical subject headings. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence, and because studies reported different methods and criteria to estimate body composition and prevalence of rheumatoid cachexia, subgroup analyses were performed. Meta-regression adjusted for the 28-joint disease activity score and disease duration (years) was performed (significance level at P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Of 136 full articles (one duplicate publication) screened for inclusion in the study, eight were included. The estimated overall prevalence of rheumatoid cachexia was 19% [95% confidence interval (CI) 07-33%]. This prevalence was 29% (95% CI 15-46%) when body composition was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. When the diagnostic criteria were fat-free mass index below the 10th percentile and fat mass index above the 25th percentile, rheumatoid cachexia prevalence was 32% (95% CI 14-52%). The 28-joint disease activity score and disease duration had no influence on the estimated prevalence of rheumatoid cachexia (P > 0.05). Most studies were rated as having moderate methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis showed a prevalence of rheumatoid cachexia of 15-32%, according to different criteria, demonstrating that this condition is a frequent comorbidity of rheumatoid arthritis. To better understand its clinical impact, more studies using standardized definitions and prospective evaluations are urgently needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.299 · 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