The Prevalence of Rheumatoid Arthritis Follow-Up Evaluation of the Effect of Criteria on Rates in
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1964 the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in the population of Sudbury was 3.8 % for women and 1.3% for men by ARA criteria. By New York criteria the prevalence rate in the same population was 0.5 % for women and 0. 1 % for men. Follow-up examinations performed through 3 to 5 years after the initial population study indicate that the New York criteria identify persons whose disease remains clinically meaningful and, as such, indicate the frequency of rheumatoid arthritis to be about 2 to 3 cases per 1000. On the other hand, the large number of Sudbury residents who reported a previous episode of pain in 3 or more joints but had no clinical signs at the time of this study raises the interesting possibility that rheumatoid arthritis exists more frequently as a benign, nondeforming condition. T H E ADULT POPULATION of Sudbury, Massachusetts, was examined in 1964 in order to determine the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis (1). Based on the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) cri-teria (2) , the prevalence of probable or definite rheumatoid arthritis was 3.8 % for women and 1.3% for men (3) , which is in general agreement with existing population data (4). When the criteria proposed by the Third International Symposium of
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".