The Risk and Consequences of Vertebral Fracture in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Population-based Data Linkage Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To compare the long-term prevalence, incidence, and outcomes of vertebral fracture (VF) between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients and matched controls, including the role of extraarticular manifestations (EAM) and osteoporosis. Methods. This was a statewide observational study using linked health data for 2321 patients with AS and 22,976 controls presenting to hospital from 1980 to 2015. Data were analyzed using incidence rates (per 1000 person-yrs) and ratios (IRR), multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results. Over a median 13.92 (interquartile range 7.58–21.67) years of follow-up, patients with AS had a greater VF prevalence and greater incidence of developing a new VF compared to controls (9.3% vs 2.5%, 6.8% vs 1.9%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Patients with AS had an increased risk of developing a VF after adjustments for age, sex, and osteoporosis (HR 2.55, 95% CI 2.11–3.09) compared to controls; this risk remained throughout the study period. Patients with AS were 5 years younger at time of first VF (P = 0.008) and had a greater likelihood of a recurrent VF (IRR 4.64; 95% CI 4.54–4.75) compared to respective controls. Mortality overall was comparable between patients with AS and controls after adjustment for age, sex, osteoporosis, and VF status (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.80–1.01). Conclusion. The significantly increased risk of VF in patients with AS has not altered following the introduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment. Although patients with AS experience a first VF at a younger age than controls, this does not lead to an increased risk of death.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".