Screening for neurocognitive impairment in HIV-positive adults aged 50 years and older: Montreal Cognitive Assessment relates to self-reported and clinician-rated everyday functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the HIV+ population ages, the risk for and need to screen for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) increases. The aim of this study is to determine the utility and ecological validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) among older HIV+ adults. A total of 100 HIV+ older adults aged 50 years or over completed a comprehensive neuromedical and neurocognitive battery, including the MoCA and several everyday functioning measures. The receiver operating characteristic curve indicates ≤26 as the optimal cut-off balancing sensitivity (84.2%) and specificity (55.8%) compared to "gold standard" impairment as measured on a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Higher MoCA total scores are significantly (p < .01) associated with better performance in all individual cognitive domains except motor abilities, with the strongest association with executive functions (r = -0.49, p < .01). Higher MoCA total scores are also significantly (p <.01) associated with fewer instrumental activities of daily living declines (r = -0.28), fewer everyday cognitive symptoms (r = -0.25), and better clinician-rated functional status (i.e., Karnofsky scores; r = 0.28); these associations remain when controlling for depressive symptoms. HIV+ individuals who are neurocognitively normal demonstrate medium-to-large effect size differences in their MoCA performance compared to those with asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment (d = 0.85) or syndromic HAND (mild neurocognitive disorder or HIV-associated dementia; d = 0.78), while the latter two categories do not differ. Although limited by less than optimal specificity, the MoCA demonstrates good sensitivity and ecological validity, which lends support to its psychometric integrity as a brief cognitive screening tool among older HIV+ adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".