Preferences and Insights for Participation in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Prevention Trial: A <scp>Mixed‐Methods</scp> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) can be elevated prior to inflammatory arthritis (IA). The potential to intervene in people with ACPA positivity underpins the development of prevention trials in RA. The Research Participation Influences Study examined factors influencing the decisions of individuals who are ACPA(+) to participate in a prevention trial using qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: Individuals with ACPA positivity without IA were provided information regarding their risk for future RA, were provided a description of a clinical prevention trial using hydroxychloroquine, and were asked if they would participate in the trial. After agreeing to or declining participation, they were surveyed on what influenced their decision using Likert scales and open-response questions. RESULTS: Thirty-nine individuals who agreed to trial participation (enrollees) and 31 individuals who declined (nonenrollees) completed surveys. Enrollees expressed greater perceived risk for RA and greater perception of benefit to themselves or others than nonenrollees. Nonenrollees expressed greater concern about medication effects and less personal or family experience with RA than enrollees. There was a higher proportion of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of people with RA in enrollees versus nonenrollees (54% vs. 23%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Enrollees were more likely than nonenrollees to be FDRs, exhibit stronger concern for personal risk for RA, and have less concern about adverse effects. Further exploration is needed to determine why these differences were present, including exploration of symptoms and the role of family history. Understanding these issues will better inform researchers and individuals who are candidates for prevention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".