MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981478351 · doi:10.1080/13550280500511782

Human immunodeficiency virus neurological complications: An overview of the Ugandan experience

2005· review· en· W1981478351 on OpenAlexaff
Noeline Nakasujja, Seggane Musisi, K. Robertson, Matthew H. Wong, Ned Sacktor, Allan Ronald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroVirology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationNeurologyNatural historyGlobal healthAntiretroviral therapyPediatricsImmunologyIntensive care medicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthPsychiatryViral loadInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sub-Saharan Africa, which has about 12% of the global population, is home to almost 70% of individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). A recent survey by the Ugandan Ministry of Health has found the HIV prevalence rate to be approximately 7% in sexually active adults. The predominant HIV subtypes present in Uganda are A and D. Health care resources are well planned but often lack human and fiscal resources. Uganda has adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) "3 by 5" global strategy for the introduction of antiretroviral therapy and has surpassed the target. Neurological complications of the HIV virus are common and often have devastating consequences. A recent study in Kampala found the rate of HIV dementia and peripheral neuropathy at 31% and 47%, respectively. Further studies are urgently required to determine the natural history and treatment outcomes of both these common HIV complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroVirologySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207