Age and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the relationship between age and quality of life (QOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after treatment with biologic agents. Methods: We recruited 153 patients with RA treated with biologic agents at three hospitals of Showa University from 2005 to 2016 for this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups—aged 65 years and older (elderly group) and aged under 65 years (adult group). The primary outcome was the change in QOL over 6 months. We measured QOL using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form-36 (SF-36), the physical component scale (PCS), and the mental component scale (MCS). Results: There were 94 adult patients (61.4%) and 59 elderly patients (38.5%). Adjusted for sex, disease duration, Disease Activity Score 28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28ESR), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and complications including interstitial lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease, there was a significant difference in PCS changes in 6 months between the groups (regression coefficients −7.25; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) −11.7 to −2.77; p = .0018). There was no significant difference in MCS. Conclusion: Elderly patients with RA may have more difficulty in achieving a satisfactory QOL after treatment with biologic agents.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".