The Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HANDs) are common, often go undetected, and can impact treatment outcomes. There is limited evidence on how to perform routine cognitive screening in HIV clinical settings. To address this, 44 HIV-positive males were recruited from a Veteran Affairs Infectious Disease clinic and completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21. In all, 50% scored below the MoCA cutoff and 36% scored below the IHDS cutoff. Current CD4 was the strongest predictor of an abnormal MoCA score (P = .007, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.987-0.998) and elevated depression was the second strongest predictor (P = .008, CI: 1.043-1.326). Combination antiviral therapy use and age were not significant predictors in this model. The MoCA appeared to be a reasonable screening tool to detect cognitive impairment in HIV-positive patients, and although it is not sufficient to diagnose HAND, it has the potential to provide meaningful clinical data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".