MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014133820 · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000000220

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment to Screen for Cognitive Impairment in HIV Patients Older Than 60 Years

2014· article· en· W2014133820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benedetta Milanini, Lauren A. Wendelken, Pardis Esmaeili‐Firidouni, Maggie Chartier, Pierre-Cédric Crouch, Victor Valcour

Bibliographic record

VenueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeurocognitiveCognitionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineReceiver operating characteristicGerontologyCognitive impairmentCognitive declineEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceDementiaAudiologyPsychiatryInternal medicineFamily medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in HIV treatments has led to HIV-infected patients living into their 60s and older. Because HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) in older age is associated with more executive dysfunction, cognitive screening instruments tapping this domain may be optimal. We examined the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify HAND in 67 HIV-infected patients older than 60 years, of which 40% were diagnosed with HAND. Receiver operating characteristic curve identified an optimal cutpoint of ≤ 25 for HAND with a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 67%. We conclude that the Montreal Cognitive Assessment has only moderate performance characteristics for cognitive screening of HIV-infected elders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207