A comparison of three strategies to reduce the burden of osteoarthritis: A population-based microsimulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare three strategies for reducing population health burden of osteoarthritis (OA): improved pharmacological treatment of OA-related pain, improved access to joint replacement surgery, and prevention of OA by reducing obesity and overweight. METHODS: We applied a validated computer microsimulation model of OA in Canada. The model simulated a Canadian-representative open population aged 20 years and older. Variables in the model included demographics, body mass index, OA diagnosis, OA treatment, mortality, and health-related quality of life. Model parameters were derived from analyses of national surveys, population-based administrative data, a hospital-based cohort study, and the literature. We compared 8 what-if intervention scenarios in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) relative to base-case, over a wide range of time horizons. RESULTS: Reductions in DALYs depended on the type of intervention, magnitude of the intervention, and the time horizon. Medical interventions (a targeted increase in the use of painkillers) tended to produce effects quickly and were, therefore, most effective over a short time horizon (a decade). Surgical interventions (increased access to joint replacement) were most effective over a medium time horizon (two decades or longer). Preventive interventions required a substantial change in BMI to generate a significant impact, but produced more reduction in DALYs than treatment strategies over a very long time horizon (several decades). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based modeling study we assessed the potential impact of three different burden reduction strategies in OA. Data generated by our model may help inform the implementation of strategies to reduce the burden of OA in Canada and elsewhere.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".