Evaluation of brief screening tools for neurocognitive impairment in HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): To systematically review literature on brief screening tools used to detect and differentiate between normal cognition and neurocognitive impairment and HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HANDs) in adult populations of persons with HIV. DESIGN: A formal systematic review. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases in 2011 and contacted experts to identify relevant studies published through May 2012. We selected empirical studies that focused on evaluating brief screening tools (<20 min) for neurocognitive impairment in persons with HIV. Two reviewers independently reviewed retrieved literature for potential relevance and methodological quality. Meta-analyses were completed on screening tools that had sufficient data. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies met inclusion criteria; we focused on 31 studies that compared brief screening tools with reference tests. Within these 31 studies, 39 tools were evaluated and 67% used a comprehensive neuropsychological battery as a reference. The majority of these studies evaluated HIV-associated dementia (HAD). Meta-analyses demonstrated that the HIV Dementia Scale (HDS) has poor pooled sensitivity (0.48) and the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) has moderate pooled sensitivity (0.62) in detecting a range of cognitive impairment. Five newer screening tools had relatively good sensitivities (>0.70); however, none of the tools differentiated HAND conditions well enough to suggest broader use. There were significant methodological shortcomings noted in most studies. CONCLUSION: HDS and IHDS perform well to screen for HAD but poorly for milder HAND conditions. Further investigation, with improved methodology, is required to understand the utility of newer screening tools for HAND; further tools may need to be developed for milder HAND conditions.
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 | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".