Screening for Neurocognitive Impairment in HIV Individuals: The Utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) associated neurocognitive disorders have been reported in up to 50% of patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) [1]. Even though screening for neurocognitive impairment (NCI) is not routinely done or recommended by current treatment guidelines [2], NCI is associated with HAARTnoncompliance and functional impairment [3], and is currently being linked to cerebrospinal fluid escape (positive CSF HIV RNA PCR in the setting of undetectable serum HIV RNA PCR) [4]. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) has been validated and widely used in several countries and languages in non-HIV infected populations to screen for cognitive impairment [5,6]. There is very limited data in HIV positive patients [7], a population that is associated with high rates of co-existing infections and comorbidities including depression and drug abuse. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the utility of the MoCA as a screening tool for NCI in HIV infected individuals.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".