Bidirectional association between rheumatoid arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are prevalent and incapacitating conditions, sharing common pathogenic pathways such as tobacco use and pulmonary inflammation. The influence of respiratory conditions including COPD on RA has been observed, meanwhile RA may constituting one of the risk factors for COPD. It unclear that whether a bidirectional associate between RA and COPD. Our study aims to explore the bidirectional relationship between RA and COPD. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for observational studies from the databases inception to February 20, 2024, utilizing medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords. We included studies in which RA and COPD were studied as either exposure or outcome variables. Statistical analyses were conducted employing STATA software (version 14.0). The relationship was reported as odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression. Results Nineteen studies with 1,549,181 participants were included. Risk of bias varied from low to moderate, with evidence levels rated as low or very low. Pooled analysis revealed a significant association between RA and increased COPD risk (OR=1.41, 95%CI 1.13 to 1.76, I 2 = 97.8%, P =0.003). Subgroup analyses showed similar COPD risk elevations in both of genders, seropositive/seronegative RA, cohort and case control studies. Additionally, there was a significant RA risk increase among those with COPD (OR=1.36, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.76, I 2 = 55.0%, P =0.022), particularly among females and seropositive RA, and cohort studies. Conclusion The meta-analysis identifies a significant bidirectional association between RA and COPD, emphasizing mutually increased risk. Recognizing this connection may can inform proactive approaches to disease prevention and management, potentially reducing the public health burden and improving quality of life. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier CRD42024518323.
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 | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".