Do quality of life and work productivity change in early axial spondyloarthritis and non-axial spondyloarthritis patients after 2 years?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in axial SpA (axSpA) and non-axSpA patients with chronic back pain of <2 years. METHODS: Baseline and 2-year data for patients included in the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early cohort were analysed. HRQoL was assessed by the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and presenteeism, absenteeism, work productivity loss (WPL) and activity impairment (AI) by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Linear or zero-inflated negative binomial regression was conducted to compare 2-year outcomes between groups (axSpA and non-axSpA), adjusting for the baseline value, sex, age and use of NSAIDs. RESULTS: There were 265 axSpA and 108 non-axSpA patients: males 52% vs 26%, mean age 29 vs 31 years, respectively. At baseline, non-axSpA patients showed worse PCS (mean 28.6 axSpA vs 26.6 non-axSpA), presenteeism (31.1% vs 37.3%), absenteeism (8.2% vs 10.3%), WPL (34.7% vs 44.1%) and AI (39.6% vs 48.5%). MCS was not impaired in either group. After 2 years, PCS, presenteeism, WPL and AI significantly improved in both groups; absenteeism only improved in axSpA. In multivariable analysis, axSpA (vs non-axSpA) was associated with 22% less WPL [incidence rate ratio (95% CI): 0.78 (0.62; 0.98)] and 18% less AI [0.82 (0.69; 0.97)]. CONCLUSION: HRQoL and work productivity are more impaired in non-axSpA (vs axSpA) at baseline and also after 2 years. Although most outcomes improve in both groups, axSpA is associated with larger reductions in WPL and AI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".