The Relationship Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Risk of Cancer, Controlling for the Effect of Drugs, in Hospitalized Patients of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confounding by indication, or the lack of separation of the effect of a drug from the effect of the underlying condition for which the drug is prescribed, can confuse the interpretation of pharmacoepidemiologic studies. This issue has arisen when examining the effect of certain second-line drugs which are used in the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis. A number of large prospective epidemiologic studies have compared the risk of neoplasia in the general population with the risk in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an effort to determine if RA is related to elevated risk of neoplasia. The basic rationale of the study involves the comparison of cancer incidence between a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients and two sets of controls: general controls and osteoarthritis controls. In order to rule out people who were in the hospital because of early symptoms of undiagnosed cancer, anyone having a diagnosis of cancer up to one year after enrollment was excluded.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".