HIV-Positive Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Have a Lower Body Mass Index and Are More Physically Active Than HIV-Negative Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the clinical and metabolic features associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are similar between HIV-positive and HIV-negative male subjects. METHODS: Twenty-six HIV-positive and 25 HIV-negative subjects with liver biopsy-proven NAFLD were compared for liver histology (extent of steatosis, steatosis grading, and fibrosis staging), blood biochemistry (glucose, insulin, C-peptide, hemoglobin A1c, and lipid profile), insulin resistance (IR) using a homeostasis model assessment, anthropometry (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, and arm muscle area), dietary intake, and physical activity. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar for age, liver histology, and IR. HIV-positive patients had a lower BMI (26.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 30.2 +/- 1.0 kg/m; P = 0.001) and lower percentage of fat mass (19.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 22.7 +/- 1.2; P = 0.026) when compared with HIV-negative patients. Although caloric intake was similar between groups, HIV-positive patients had a higher physical activity level (8.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 4.1 +/- 0.8 units of exercise per day; P = 0.029). Blood triglycerides were significantly higher (3.14 +/- 0.39 vs. 1.86 +/- 0.20 mmol/L; P = 0.006) in HIV-positive patients. CONCLUSION: Although NAFLD was similar between the 2 groups, HIV-positive patients had a lower BMI and were more physically active compared with HIV-negative patients. This may suggest that in HIV, NAFLD is associated with factors other than those related to body fatness, such as HIV infection and treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".