Effect of HIV Infection and Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy on Hearing Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Many studies have found a higher prevalence of hearing impairment among HIV-positive individuals. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of HIV and highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) on the hearing function in a Cameroonian population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a prospective case-control study from March 1, 2012, through January 31, 2013. The study took place at the National Social Insurance Fund Hospital in Yaoundé, Cameroon, a public health facility. We included 90 HIV-positive case patients and 90 HIV-negative control patients aged 15 to 49 years without any history of hearing loss or treatment with a known ototoxic drug. The case group was further divided into 3 subgroups: 30 HAART-naive patients, 30 patients receiving first-line HAART, and 30 patients receiving second-line HAART. INTERVENTIONS: Hearing function was assessed by pure-tone audiometry and classified according to the criteria of the Bureau International d'Audio-Phonologie. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hearing loss due to HIV and HAART. RESULTS: The HIV-positive patients had more otologic symptoms (hearing loss, dizziness, tinnitus, and otalgia) than HIV-negative patients (41 vs 13, P = .04). There were 49 cases (27.2%) of hearing loss in the HIV-positive group vs 10 (5.6%) in the HIV-negative group (P = .04). Compared with HIV-negative individuals, the odds of hearing loss were higher among HIV-infected HAART-naive patients (right ear: odds ratio [OR], 6.7; 95% CI, 4.3-9.7; P = .004; left ear: OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.5-8.3; P = .006), patients receiving first-line HAART (right ear: OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.9-10.5; P = .01; left ear: OR, 12.5; 95% CI, 8.5-15.4; P < .001), and patients receiving second-line HAART (right ear: OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 3.3-9.6; P = .004; left ear: OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.0-5.0; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hearing loss is more frequent in HIV-infected patients compared with uninfected patients. Therefore, HIV-infected patients need special audiologic care. Further studies are needed because controversy remains regarding the factors that lead to ear damage.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".