When does obesity exert its effect in conferring risk of developing RA: a large study in cohorts of symptomatic persons at risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Obesity is a known risk factor for developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unclear whether obesity exerts its risk effect during the asymptomatic or the symptomatic clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) phase of risk. To improve understanding of the effect of obesity on RA development, we aimed to (1) compare body mass index (BMI) at CSA onset to BMI of the general population and (2) study within CSA patients if obesity increases the risk for progression to RA. METHODS: 1107 symptomatic persons at risk for RA from four cohorts (CSA Leiden, CSA Rotterdam, SONAR and TREAT EARLIER placebo arm) were studied. For the first aim, baseline BMI was compared with age-matched/sex-matched BMI of the general population. Patients were stratified for anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status. Regarding the second aim, the association between BMI and inflammatory arthritis (IA) development during 2 years was studied with Cox regression analysis within each cohort and via meta-analysis in all cohorts. RESULTS: CSA patients of all cohorts were more often obese than the general population (respectively 21.9% vs 14.0%, 25.7% vs 14.5%, 26.7% vs 14.5% and 33.3% vs 14.9%, in CSA Leiden, CSA Rotterdam, SONAR, TREAT EARLIER placebo arm). Both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative CSA patients had a higher frequency of obesity. Within CSA, obesity was not associated with IA development compared to normal weight (pooled effect in meta-analysis of four cohorts HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.08)). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is not associated with RA development within CSA patients but BMI has already increased in CSA compared to the general population. Obesity, therefore, presumably exerts its risk effect at an early asymptomatic phase of RA development, rather than being associated with the disease processes that ultimately result in clinical arthritis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".