Randomized trial of minocycline in the treatment of HIV-associated cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of minocycline in the management of HIV-associated cognitive impairment. METHODS: We enrolled HIV-positive participants with a CD4 count of 250 to 500 cells/μL in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. They received 100 mg of minocycline or matching placebo orally every 12 hours for 24 weeks. Cognitive function was measured using the Uganda neuropsychological test battery summary measure (U NP Sum) and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) scale. The primary efficacy measure was the 24-week change in an average of 9 standardized U NP Sum z scores. RESULTS: Seventy-three participants were enrolled. Of these, 90% were female, 49% were between the ages 30 and 39 years, and 74% had 6 or more years of education. One participant had MSK score of stage 1 (i.e., mild HIV dementia), and 72 participants had MSK stage 0.5 (i.e., equivocal or subclinical dementia) at the baseline evaluation. The minocycline effect on the 24-week change of the U NP Sum compared with placebo was 0.03 (95% confidence interval -0.51, 0.46; p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Minocycline was safe and well tolerated in HIV-positive individuals. However, it did not improve HIV-associated cognitive impairment. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that 100 mg of minocycline given orally every 12 hours for 24 weeks had no significant effect compared with placebo in the improvement of cognitive function in antiretroviral therapy-naive, HIV-positive patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".