B-60 * Problems Screening for HAND among the Educationally Disadvantaged
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the recommended cutoffs for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Modified HIV Dementia Scale (MHDS), and International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) are appropriate for screening for HAND in patients with HIV. Method: Inclusion criteria were age 18–64, diagnosed with HIV in the past year, and CD4 count ≥ 350. Fifty percent were male and 94% were African American. Of the 187 HIV+ patients included, descriptive statistics were mean (SD): 32.0 (11.1) years of age, 11.6 (2.2) years of education, 2.3 (2.8) months with HIV diagnosis, 582.3 (208.9) CD4 count, 80.4 (13.6) Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) standard score, 21.5 (4.6) MoCA score, 8.6 (2.8) MHDS score, and 9.8 (1.8) IHDS score. Results: Overall, 28.3%, 59.3%, and 83.8% of patients obtained scores below the recommended cutoffs for the MHDS (< 24 for the MoCA;1 however, 59.5% of the sample obtained scores below this score). The MHDS and MoCA were correlated with WRAT4 scores (.69 and .72) and years of education (.34 and .42) but not months diagnosed (.004 and .10) or CD4 count (−0.03 and .04). The IHDS was correlated with WRAT4 scores (.41) but not years of education (.18), months diagnosed (.004), or CD4 count (-03). Conclusion(s): These screeners have a tremendous false positive rate in this socioeconomically disadvantaged population. Future research should include follow-up with comprehensive test batteries to determine whether these measures are assessing neuropsychological problems other than HAND and poor literacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".