Impact of residential area on the management of rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating their first biologic DMARD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to care and management of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients may differ based on residential area. We described differences in the profile of patients initiating their first biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) based on their residential area type.Cross-sectional analysis of 793 adult RA patients in the longitudinal Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) registry initiating their first bDMARD <30 days prior to or anytime post-enrolment. Patient residential and clinic areas (rural vs. urban) were classified using 2 methods: postal codes and Statistics Canada population centres. Sociodemographics, disease characteristics, and RA medications (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi] vs. non-TNFi, concurrent use of conventional synthetic DMARDs [csDMARDs], and intravenous [IV] vs. subcutaneous [SC] bDMARD) at initiation of first bDMARD were contrasted between residential area types.Other than marital status, first language, and race (higher proportion of married, English speaking, Caucasian patients in rural areas), no significant differences were observed in the demographic and disease characteristics of patients living in rural and urban areas. In multivariate analysis, there was no association between residential area type and type of bDMARD use, concurrent csDMARD(s) use or route of bDMARD. However, patients living farther from their treating clinic were significantly less likely to initiate IV bDMARD. Female rheumatologist and rural clinic location were independently associated with lower odds of IV bDMARD use.The use of SC vs. IV bDMARD was associated with being seen in a clinic located in a rural area, being treated by a female rheumatologist, and living farther from treating clinic. These results suggest possible prescription bias in bDMARD selection and/or patient preferences due to convenience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".