Association Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Risk of Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are two common chronic diseases worldwide, and any potential link between the two would significantly impact public health practice. Considering the current inconsistent evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to examine the risk of PD in patients with RA. Methods Two investigators (DL and XH) conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using medical subject headings terms combined with free words to identify relevant papers published from inception through December 31, 2021. All studies that explored the relationship between RA and PD were included for quantitative analysis and qualitative review. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of PD in patients with RA. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guideline. Results Four population-based studies involving 353,246 patients and one Mendelian randomized study were included in our study. The pooled result showed a significantly reduced risk of PD in patients with RA than in the general population (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-0.98, P = 0.034). No apparent effects of gender, age, region, follow-up time, or study design on PD risk were observed. Sensitivity analysis showed that pooled results were relatively stable, and no publication bias was detected. The Mendelian randomization study indicated a significant inverse association between RA and PD (genetic correlation: −0.10, P = 0.0033) and that each one standard deviation increase in the risk of RA was significantly associated with a lower risk of PD. Of note, the current study is limited by the relatively small number of included studies and unmeasured confounding factors, especially for RA-related anti-inflammatory agents. Conclusions This study supports that people with RA had a lower PD risk than those without RA. Further studies are needed to explore the underlying molecular mechanisms of the interaction between the two diseases.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".