Functional Limitations and Disability in Persons Living with HIV in South Africa and United States: Similarities and Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons living with HIV (PLHIV) may experience disability. We compared disability among PLHIV in the United States and South Africa and investigated associations with health and demographic characteristics. Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data using medical records and questionnaires including the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS) 2.0 12-item version (range: 0-36, with higher scores indicative of more severe disability). Between-country differences for the presence of disability were assessed with logistic regression and differences in severity using multiple regression. Eighty-six percent of US participants reported disability, compared to 51.3% in South Africa. The mean WHO-DAS score was higher in the United States (12.09 ± 6.96) compared to South Africa (8.3 ± 6.27). Participants with muscle pain, depression, or more years since HIV diagnosis were more likely to report disability. Being female or depressed was associated with more severity. Being adherent to anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and employed were associated with less severity. Because muscle pain and depression were predictive factors for disability, treatment of those problems may help mitigate disability in PLHIV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".