The association between allergic rhinitis and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To investigate the association between allergic rhinitis (AR) and the risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Potentially eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to November 2019. Eligible cohort study must report relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of incident RA between AR patients and comparators. Eligible case‐control studies must include cases with RA and controls without RA, and must explore their history of AR. Odds ratio with 95% CIs of the association between AR and RA must be reported. Point estimates with standard errors from each study were combined using the generic inverse variance method. Results A total of 21,824 articles were identified. After two rounds of the independent review by three investigators, two cohort studies and 10 case–control studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled analysis showed no association between AR and risk of RA (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.20; I2 = 84%). However, when we conducted a sensitivity analysis including only studies with acceptable quality, defined as Newcastle‐Ottawa score of seven or higher, we found that patients with AR had a significantly higher risk of RA (RR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.65; I2 = 45%). Conclusions The current systematic review and meta‐analysis could not reveal a significant association between AR and RA. However, when only studies with acceptable quality were included, a significantly higher risk of RA among patients with AR than individuals without AR was observed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".