Quality of life among urban Canadian HIV/AIDS clinic outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived health-related quality of life (QOL) of 113 adult people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) attending an outpatient hospital clinic was assessed upon initial registration using the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36. QOL ratings on both physical functioning and psychological well-being aspects of the SF-36 were lower than for the general population, especially among PHA in the sample who were symptomatic or for whom AIDS had developed. Although not compromised in terms of physical functioning, asymptomatic PHA had well-being QOL scores comparable to other chronic medical conditions. In general, demographic, social, and many of the health and immune status variables examined were not significantly related to QOL. Number of symptoms was negatively associated with both physical status and emotional well-being dimensions of QOL. PHA in the asymptomatic stage of HIV infection reported better QOL than symptomatic/AIDS patients on few QOL dimensions. Mean QOL ratings did not significantly differ between AIDS patients and those with symptomatic (non-AIDS) infection. These findings suggest that although becoming symptomatic has a significant impact on a majority of dimensions of QOL, being diagnosed with HIV affects well-being dimensions the most. An emphasis on support for both adjusting to diagnosis and symptom management is as important as viral suppression in maximizing QOL for PHA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".