The risk of rheumatoid arthritis among patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Studies have suggested that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the available data on this association are inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the association between IBD and the risk of RA. Methods Observational studies investigating the RA risk among patients with IBD (Crohn disease (CD) and/or ulcerative colitis (UC)) were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from the date of inception to December 2019. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidential intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 statistics while publication bias was determined using Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results A total of three cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, and two case-control studies were included in the meta-analyses. Compared to the non-IBD control or general population, there was a significantly higher risk of RA among patients with IBD (RR = 2.59; 95% CI: 1.93–3.48). Moreover, both CD (RR = 3.14; 95% CI: 2.46–4.01) and UC (RR = 2.29; 95% CI: 1.76–2.97) were associated with a significantly increased risk of RA. However, heterogeneity was substantial across studies and the subgroup analyses failed to identify the potential source of heterogeneity. Conclusions Patients with IBD have a greater risk of developing RA. Rheumatologists should be consulted when patients with IBD present with undifferentiated joint complaints. However, more prospective cohort studies are needed to validate these results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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, 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".