The Extent and Nature of Functional Limitations According to the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Severe Functional Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For a subgroup of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and severe disability, insight into their limitations is crucial for adequate treatment. Aim: To describe the extent and nature of functional limitations in people with RA and severe disability and to explore the associations of the extent of the functional limitations with patient characteristics, disease characteristics, and outcome measures. Methods: Baseline data of 215 participants in an RCT on the (cost-)effectiveness of longstanding physiotherapy were used. Functional limitations were assessed with the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). The total HAQ-DI including eight domain scores were calculated. Associations between high HAQ-DI scores (≥2, yes/no) and other variables were examined using the Student’s t-test or Chi-squared test where appropriate. Results: The participants (90% women, age 58.8 ± 12.8 years) had a mean HAQ-DI score of 1.7 ± 0.5. The majority (56%) showed a moderate-to-severe disability in all domains. Higher HAQ-DI scores seemed to be associated with advanced age, longer disease duration, unemployment, joint replacements, and outcomes for daily functioning and physical quality of life, but not with measures of disease activity. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a comprehensive assessment of all areas of daily activities in this subgroup is necessary in order to provide appropriate (non-)pharmacological care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".