Cognitive frailty and falls among Egyptian older adults with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive frailty is defined through a combination of physical frailty and cognitive impairment and is a growing concern in rheumatology. Rheumatoid arthritis is a lifelong disease, and the disease itself and the side effects of drug treatments may cause frailty. This study assessed the prevalence and risk factors for cognitive frailty and falls in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Results A cross-sectional study involving 105 rheumatoid arthritis patients (aged 60 and older) was performed. Each participant received a comprehensive medical history review. The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Frail Scale were assessed. Sixty-one patients (58.1%) exhibited mild cognitive impairment. Forty-eight (45.7%) were categorized as frail. Among the frail patients, 41 (85.4%) showed mild cognitive impairment. Cognitive frailty was observed in 41 patients (39%). Compared to prefrail patients, frail patients were older (mean age 68.98 ± 4.01 vs 63.54 ± 2.63; p < 0.0001), had a longer disease duration (33.00 ± 6.05 vs 26.77 ± 5.29; p < 0.0001), displayed higher disease activity (median SDAI 24 vs 10; p < 0.0001), and experienced a greater number of falls (2 vs 0; p < 0.0001). Conclusion Cognitive frailty is prevalent in RA patients. Age, level of education, disease duration, and disease severity are significant risk factors for frailty and cognitive impairment. RA patients who are frail are more prone to falls and therefore have a higher incidence of morbidity and adverse events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".