Development and Testing of Cardiovascular Quality Indicators for Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune inflammatory arthritis with a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) related deaths. Traditional CVD risk factors including smoking, hypertension and diabetes may be under-identified and/or undertreated in RA, indicating a gap in care. Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for quality improvement and are lacking in this area. The objectives of this dissertation were to: (1) identify existing recommendations pertaining to screening and management of CVD risk in RA; (2) to develop a set of CVD QIs for RA based on the best practices; and (3) to test the QIs in clinical practice. A systematic review of existing CVD QIs and guidelines was conducted (Study 1). All CVD recommendations from high quality guidelines and relevant quality measures were abstracted and best practices in RA were identified. In Study 2, a panel of cardiologists and rheumatologists developed a set of CVD QIs for RA based on best the practices identified. The QIs were presented to an international panel of experts through a novel online modified Delphi process where they were rated and discussed over 3 rounds. In the final study, performance on the CVD QIs was evaluated in 170 early and biologic treated RA patients. Based on the process described above, 11 CVD QIs for RA were developed and were rated as highly relevant and valid by our international panel of experts. This was the first time the online platform was used for QI development and it demonstrated many advantages. Performance on the QIs from our cohort suggests under screening and inconsistent management of CVD risk factors. Also evident, was that our patients had a high burden of obesity, hypertension and smoking, suggesting this is a clinically meaningful gap in care. The primary area for future improvement was noted for QIs relating to communication of CVD risk and coordination of care between rheumatology and primary care. Therefore, future efforts should focus on improving coordination of CVD care as well as improving efficiency of QI measurement and reporting for timely and effective improvements in CVD care.
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 | 0.167 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".