Neurodevelopmental outcome of HIV‐exposed but uninfected infants in the Mother and Infants Health Study, Cape Town, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare neurodevelopmental outcomes of HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) and HIV-unexposed uninfected (HUU) infants in a peri-urban South African population. HEU infants living in Africa face unique biological and environmental risks, but uncertainty remains regarding their neurodevelopmental outcome. This is partly due to lack of well-matched HUU comparison groups needed to adjust for confounding factors. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of infants enrolled at birth from a low-risk midwife obstetric facility. At 12 months of age, HEU and HUU infant growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes were compared. Growth was evaluated as WHO weight-for-age, length-for-age, weight-for-length and head-circumference-for-age Z-scores. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were evaluated using the Bayley scales of Infant Development III (BSID) and Alarm Distress Baby Scale (ADBB). RESULTS: Fifty-eight HEU and 38 HUU infants were evaluated at 11-14 months of age. Performance on the BSID did not differ in any of the domains between HEU and HUU infants. The cognitive, language and motor scores were within the average range (US standardised norms). Seven (12%) HEU and 1 (2.6%) HUU infant showed social withdrawal on the ADBB (P = 0.10), while 15 (26%) HEU and 4 (11%) HUU infants showed decreased vocalisation (P = 0.06). There were no growth differences. Three HEU and one HUU infant had minor neurological signs, while eight HEU and two HUU infants had macrocephaly. CONCLUSIONS: Although findings on the early neurodevelopmental outcome of HEU infants are reassuring, minor differences in vocalisation and on neurological examination indicate a need for reassessment at a later age.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".