MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385498895 · doi:10.7454/jpdi.v10i2.1446

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic and chronic autoimmune disease involving the joints disorder as the main manifestations. Methotrexate (MTX) is currently still the drug of choice for RA treatment due to the good clinical response. However, there was a case reported by the American Geriatric Society in 2015 regarding the presence of reversible dementia after treatment with low-dose oral methotrexate. This study aimed to identify the effect of MTX treatment on cognitive disorder in RA patients. Methods. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023414937). A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline Embase database, Scopus, CENTRAL to identify cohort observational studies, case controls, and randomized control trial (RCT) studies, evaluating the effect of methotrexate therapy on cognitive function disorder in RA patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS Scale) was used to analyze the quality of existing observational studies and The COCHRANE was used to analyze the RCT studies which included in the journals reviewed. Results. There were 4 observational studies that met the criteria, including 2 case control studies and 2 cohort studies. Pooling was carried out in two different types of studies. The OR was 0.81 (95%CI 0.4 – 1.68) in the case control studies group, whereas the RR was 0.88 (95% CI 0 .6 – 1.3) in the cohort studies group. The heterogeneity of each type of case-control studies and cohort studies were I2 92% (p-value277% (p-value Conclusion. Methotrexate therapy has not been proven to have an effect on cognitive disorder in RA patients either as a protective factor or as a risk factor.

2023· article· en· W4385498895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evy Yunihastuti, Ari Fahrial Syam, Dewi Sumaryani Soemarko, Andrian Wiraguna

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penyakit Dalam Indonesia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePersonal protective equipmentRheumatoid arthritisIsolation (microbiology)Face shieldCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MethotrexateCross-sectional studyInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Health carePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Doctors have greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 due to occupational exposure. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an essential factor in reducing COVID-19 transmission. We aimed to evaluate the behavior changes of PPE usage among doctors in Indonesia before and after getting COVID-19 infection in early pandemic. Methods. This was a descriptive online survey with cross-sectional design. This survey was conducted from October-December 2020 among Indonesian doctors who were COVID-19 survivors. Results. A total of 389 doctors who survived COVID-19 infection across Indonesia were included in the final analysis. Most participants were general practitioners and residents (69.2%) with a median age of 40 (22-28) years. After being infected, there was an improvement in the use of N95 respirator masks in isolation rooms (always: 80.9% from 70.2%; sometimes: 13.2% from 15.8%). An improvement in the use of other PPE before and after being infected with COVID-19 was also shown by the use of other PPE such as headcap (93.9% from 83.3%), face shield (90.4% from 83.3%), goggles (70.2% from 62.3%), gown (61.4% from 53.6%), hazmat suit (88.6% from 81.6%), boots (82.5% from 71.1%), and gloves (91.3% from 86.8%). Similar results were also shown in the use of PPE in other non-isolation rooms. Conclusion. After recovering from COVID-19 infection, these doctors showed an increase usage of adequate PPE both while on duty in isolation and non-isolation rooms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penyakit Dalam IndonesiaSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207