Outcome of patients with HIV-1-related cognitive impairment on highly active antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on the outcome of HIV-1-related cognitive impairments using a neuropsychological (NP) battery to assess separately the psychomotor, executive function and memory fields. DESIGN: A longitudinal study of HIV-1-infected patients based on serial NP tests in a Paris University Hospital. METHODS: A group of 91 HIV-1-infected patients, of whom 47 were already taking HAART at their first NP examination, were initially categorized as cognitively impaired (n = 53) or non-impaired (n = 38) and underwent one to six serial NP batteries (mean follow-up 12.3+/-8.3 months). Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate performance in a given NP test according to the number of days on HAART. RESULTS: Despite a 25% mortality rate among patients who had cognitive impairment at their first NP examination, GEE showed a positive relationship between the duration of HAART and cognitive performance. Performance in psychomotor tests (e.g. Purdue Pegboard dominant hand) improved continuously during the study period, while memory test performance (e.g. Grober and Buschke free recall) tended to reach a plateau. CONCLUSIONS: HAART improves subcortical cognitive functions during the first year of treatment. Distinct neuropathological mechanisms appear to underlie psychomotor and memory dysfunctions in AIDS.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".