Greater pain and functional impairment in chronic erosive hand osteoarthritis compared to treated rheumatoid arthritis: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the burden of established chronic rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA), in terms of pain, functional impairment, comorbidities, and cardiometabolic diseases (CMD). Methods: This study included EHOA patients from the inclusion visit of the DIGICOD cohort and RA patients from the 10th year visit of the ESPOIR cohort. Outcomes were pain intensity (≥40 on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale [VAS]), VAS fatigue, and functional impairment, measured by normalized (0-100) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) for RA and the AUStralian CANadian Osteoarthritis Hand (AUSCAN) function for EHOA and binarized by their medians. Comorbidities and CMD were also assessed. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and socio-educational level were used to compare outcomes. Results: 48.6 years, p < 0.001). EHOA patients were more likely to experience higher pain at mobilization (OR = 3.13 95 % CI [1.74 to 5.68]) and greater functional impairment (OR = 2.27, 95 % CI [1.26 to 4.17]) than RA patients. There was no difference for fatigue and pain at rest. The overall risk of comorbidities was lower in EHOA patients in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.25, 95%CI [0.13-0.48]). There was no significant difference in CMD risk. Conclusion: After more than 10 years of disease duration, EHOA is associated with greater pain and functional impairment than treated RA but with fewer comorbidities. This highlights the significant unmet need for effective therapies for EHOA patients.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".