Association of anxiety, depression and resilience with overall health and functioning in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA): a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between anxiety, depression and resilience with overall health and functioning in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation of baseline data from a prospective cohort study, with recruitment from January 2018 to March 2021. SETTING: Outpatient clinic in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 21 years and above who were diagnosed with axSpA. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used for assessing anxiety and depression, 10-item Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) for resilience, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for disease activity, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) for functional limitation and Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI) for overall health and functioning. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to assess the association between anxiety, depression and resilience with health and functioning. RESULTS: We included 296 patients in this study. The median (IQR) score for HADS-Anxiety was 5.0 (2.0-8.0), with 13.5% and 13.9% having borderline abnormal and abnormal anxiety, respectively. The median (IQR) score for HADS-Depression was 3.0 (1.0-7.0), with 12.8% and 8.4% having borderline abnormal and abnormal depression, respectively. The median (IQR) CD-RISC-10 score was 29.0 (23.0-32.0) while the median (IQR) ASAS HI score was 4.0 (2.0-7.0). Apart from BASDAI, BASFI and disease duration, anxiety and depression were associated with overall health and functioning (β: 0.12, 95% CI 0.03, 0.20; β: 0.20, 95% CI 0.09, 0.31) in the multivariable linear regression. Level of resilience was not associated with health and functioning. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and depression, but not resilience, were associated with poorer health and functioning. Clinicians could consider routinely screening for anxiety and depression in their patients, especially in patients with more severe symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".