MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408077786 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2024-1258

Sex Differences in Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Insights From Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcome Perspectives

2025· article· en· W4408077786 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gonul Hazal Koc, Agnes E. M. Looijen, Irene van der Horst‐Bruinsma, Pascal H P de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisPerspective (graphical)Outcome (game theory)ArthritisImmunopathologyMEDLINEPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The disease course and burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ between female and male individuals, but existing data on these differences are limited and often contradictory. Therefore, we investigated whether clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ between female and male patients with RA over time. Methods All female (n = 286) and male (n = 139) patients with RA according to 1987 and/or 2010 criteria from Treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH), a stratified single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target (T2T) approach and fixed medication protocol, were included. Clinical outcomes include disease activity, medication usage, sustained disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-free remission (SDFR), and radiographic progression. In addition, the following PROs were investigated: general health, pain, functional ability, health-related quality of life, fatigue, productivity loss, and a possible depression or anxiety disorder. For comparisons over time, a mixed model or Cox proportional hazard model was used. The mixed models were adjusted for age, initial treatment, and disease activity (Disease Activity Score in 44 joints [DAS44]). Results Female patients had a higher DAS44 over time compared to male patients (β 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.47, P < 0.001), which also resulted in more treatment adjustments including use of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs; 36% vs 24%, P < 0.001). Although not significant, first bDMARD survival seemed shorter in female patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.6, P = 0.24). However, no differences were found in SDFR and radiographic progression. With regard to PROs, only functional ability differed significantly between sexes after adjusting for confounders, including disease activity (Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index, β 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.17, P < 0.001). Conclusion Clinical outcomes and PROs are intertwined, and both improve with a T2T management approach. Nevertheless, female patients with RA have higher disease activity, a greater need for bDMARDs—although these have lower efficacy—and more functional impairment over time, underscoring the need for sex-specific management recommendations. (Trial registration number: ISRCTN26791028 )

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→