Testing a Computerized Cognitive Training Protocol in Adults Aging With HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial Rationale and Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders occur in nearly 50% of adults with HIV. Such disorders can interfere with everyday functioning such as driving and medication adherence. Therefore, cognitive interventions are needed to address such neurocognitive disorders as well as improve everyday functioning, especially as people age with HIV. OBJECTIVE: This article reports and discusses the overall rationale and development of speed of processing training, a computerized Internet cognitive training program, to improve this specific neurocognitive ability as well as everyday functioning and quality of life in adults aging with HIV. Although this protocol has been shown to improve speed of processing, everyday functioning, and quality of life in healthy, community-dwelling older adults in the advanced cognitive training in vital elderly (ACTIVE) study, its efficacy in adults aging with HIV has not been established. Nevertheless, such a cognitive intervention is particularly germane as 52%-59% of adults with HIV experience HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), and both the frequency and severity of such disorders may increase with advancing age. METHODS: The description of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial covers the following: (1) rationale for speed of processing training in this clinical population, (2) overview of overall study design, (3) eligibility criteria and HAND, (4) intervention dosage, (5) assessment battery, and (6) examination of biomarkers. RESULTS: The project was funded in April 2016 and enrolment is on-going. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Similar novel cognitive intervention approaches are suggested as they may be of value to those with HAND and may utilize similar features of this current randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocol to examine their therapeutic efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02758093; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02758093 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6p8C5fBCX).
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 | 0.039 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.008 |
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".