MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097735138

Original article Early consultation with a rheumatologist for RA: does it reduce subsequent use of orthopaedic surgery?

2016· article· en· W7097735138 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiagnosis codeCohortOrthopedic surgeryProportional hazards modelDiseaseMultivariate analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. Optimal care in RA includes early use of DMARDs to prevent joint damage and hopefully decrease the need for costly surgical interventions. Our objective was to determine whether a reduced rate of orthopaedic surgery was evident for persons with RA who saw a rheumatologist early in the disease course. Methods. We studied persons who had a diagnosis of RA based on billing code data in the province of Quebec in 1995, and for whom the initial date of RA diagnosis by a non-rheumatologist could be estab-lished before the confirmatory diagnosis by the rheumatologist. We followed these patients until 2007. Patients were classified as early consulters or late consulters depending on whether they were seen by a rheumatologist within or beyond 3 months of being diagnosed with RA by their referring physician. The outcome, orthopaedic surgery, was defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) pro-cedure codes ICD9 and ICD10. Multivariate Cox regression with time-dependent covariates estimated the effect of early consultation on the time to orthopaedic surgery. Results. Our cohort consisted of 1051 persons; mean age at diagnosis was 55.7 years, 68.2 % were female and 50.7 % were early consulters. Among all patients, 20.5 % (215) had an orthopaedic surgery

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207