Does Antiretroviral Therapy Improve HIV-Associated Cognitive Impairment? A Quantitative Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of antiretroviral therapy (ART) has dramatically improved survival for those living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but whether ART improves cognitive functioning remains unclear. The aim of the present review was to examine systematically the extent to which ART improves cognition among individuals with HIV using meta-analytic methods. Twenty-three studies were included in the quantitative review. ART was associated with modest improvements in attention (mean d = .17; p < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], .09/.25), executive function (mean d = .18; p < .001; 95% CI, .10/.26), and motor function (mean d = .24; p < .001; 95% CI, .16/.32). ART did not improve language, verbal memory, visual memory or visuospatial function. The extent to which cognition improved was correlated with the change in CD4 cell count following ART, suggesting a link between cognitive outcome and immune system integrity. Together, the present findings indicate that the neuropsychological test performance of most HIV patients taking ART is comparable to those not taking ART. Development of pharmaceutical treatments and rehabilitation strategies that target the cognitive effects of HIV infection is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".