Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Sarcopenia in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Sarcopenia is underrecognized in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Risk factors of sarcopenia and its impact on outcomes in RA patients are relatively unknown. We conducted a systematic review to identify factors and outcomes associated with sarcopenia in RA. We conducted this review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases by combining the following search concepts: (1) RA and (2) sarcopenia. Articles were included if they included RA patients, assessed for sarcopenia using a consensus working group definition, and assessed for clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using studies that shared the same sarcopenia definition and consistency in reporting patient or disease variables. Our search identified 3602 articles. After removal of duplicates, title and abstract screen, and full-text review, 16 articles were included for final analysis. All studies had observational study designs. The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 24% to 30%, depending on the criteria for sarcopenia used. Factors associated with sarcopenia included higher 28-joint Disease Activity Scale scores (+0.39; 95% confidence interval, +0.02 to +0.77) and baseline methotrexate use (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.97). Baseline glucocorticoid use had a positive correlation with sarcopenia in multiple studies. Several studies found lower bone mineral density and higher incidence of falls and fractures in patients with sarcopenia. Sarcopenia is prevalent in RA, and it may be associated with higher RA disease activity, lower bone mineral density, and increased falls and fractures. Therefore, early screening of sarcopenia in RA patients is important to incorporate into clinical rheumatology practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".