Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Hand Osteoarthritis from the General Population and the Outpatient Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of hand osteoarthritis (OA) and concurrent hand and knee OA with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the general population, and in patients consulting a rheumatology outpatient clinic. METHODS: In the population-based Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study, participants were recruited from the greater area of Leiden, the Netherlands. In the Hand OSTeoArthritis in Secondary care (HOSTAS) study, patients with a rheumatologist's diagnosis of hand OA were recruited from a Leiden-based hospital. In both cohorts, hand and knee OA were defined by the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria. In NEO, self-reported hospital-based specialist consultation for OA was recorded. Physical and mental HRQOL was assessed with normalized Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 scores. Associations were analyzed using linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, education, ethnicity, and body mass index. RESULTS: Hand OA alone and concurrent hand and knee OA was present in 8% and 4% of 6334 NEO participants, and in 57% and 32% of 538 HOSTAS patients. In NEO, hand OA alone, and concurrent hand and knee OA, were associated with lower physical component summary (PCS) scores [mean difference -2.4 (95% CI -3.6, -1.3) and -7.7 (95% CI -9.3, -6.2), respectively] compared with no OA. Consulting a specialist was associated with worse PCS scores. In the HOSTAS cohort, mean PCS scores were lower than norm values (-3.5 and -7.9 for hand OA and combined OA, respectively). Mental HRQOL was not clinically relevantly associated in either cohort. CONCLUSION: Hand OA was associated with reduced physical, but not mental, HRQOL in the general population and hospital patients. Physical HRQOL was further reduced in hospital care, and with concurrent knee OA.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".