The association between asymptomatic and mild neurocognitive impairment and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among people living with human immunodeficiency virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic cognitive impairment in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients has recently been recognised as part of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. This has been implicated as one of the causes of poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between neurocognitive impairment (asymptomatic and mild forms) and adherence to ART. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey involving 218 participants consecutively sampled from those attending the HIV treatment clinic at Aga Khan University Hospital in Nairobi. Data collected included quantitative primary data on pre-defined baseline characteristics, neurocognitive assessment by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool (Appendix 1), instrumental activities of daily living by Lawton score and objective and subjective adherence measures by medication possession ratio (MPR) and simplified medication adherence questionnaire (SMAQ) (see Appendix 2). Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to determine the strengths of association between predictor and the outcome variables. RESULTS: Among the 218 participants in the study, a total of 69% had asymptomatic to mild neurocognitive impairment as assessed by the MoCA tool, while a total of 66% were determined as being adherent to ART by objective measures (by MPR) compared to subjective rates of 77% as assessed by SMAQ. However, no statistically significant association was observed between the presence of asymptomatic or mild neurocognitive impairment and likelihood of adherence to ART (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Even though asymptomatic and mild forms of cognitive impairment are prevalent in the population studied, there was no significant association between cognitive impairment and adherence to treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".