Decision making under explicit risk is impaired in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can affect the frontal-striatal brain regions, which are known to subserve decision-making functions. Previous studies have reported impaired decision making among HIV+ individuals using the Iowa Gambling Task, a task that assesses decision making under ambiguity. Previous study populations often had significant comorbidities such as past or present substance use disorders and/or hepatitis C virus coinfection, complicating conclusions about the unique contributions of HIV-infection to decision making. Decision making under explicit risk has very rarely been examined in HIV+ individuals and was tested here using the Game of Dice Task (GDT). METHOD: We examined decision making under explicit risk in the GDT in 20 HIV+ individuals without substance use disorder or HCV coinfection, including a demographically matched healthy control group (n = 20). Groups were characterized on a standard neuropsychological test battery. For the HIV+ group, several disease-related parameters (viral load, current and nadir CD4 T-cell count) were included. Analyses focused on the GDT and spanned between-group (t-tests; analysis of covariance, ANCOVA) as well as within-group comparisons (Pearson/Spearman correlations). RESULTS: HIV+ individuals were impaired in the GDT, compared to healthy controls (p = .02). Their decision-making impairments were characterized by less advantageous choices and more random choice strategies, especially towards the end of the task. Deficits in the GDT in the HIV+ group were related to executive dysfunctions, slowed processing/motor speed, and current immune system status (CD4+ T-cell levels, ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Decision making under explicit risk in the GDT can occur in HIV-infected individuals without comorbidities. The correlational patterns may point to underlying fronto-subcortical dysfunctions in HIV+ individuals. The GDT provides a useful measure to assess risky decision making in this population and should be tested in larger studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".