Cognitive screening in treatment-naïve HIV-infected individuals in Hong Kong – a single center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) remains prevalent in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). The prevalence of HAND in Hong Kong is not known. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2015, 98 treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected individuals were referred to and screened by the AIDS Clinical Service, Queen Elizabeth Hospital with (1) the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS), a screening tool that targets moderate to severe HAND, (2) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a frequently used cognitive screening test and (3) the Patient Health Questionnare-9 (PHQ-9), a 9-item questionnaire that evaluates depression symptoms. Within the study period, 57 of them completed the second set of IHDS and MoCA at 6 months after baseline assessment. RESULTS: Most participants were male (94%), with a median age of 31 years. At baseline, 38 (39%) and 25 (26%) of them scored below the IHDS (≤10) and MoCA (25/26) cut-offs respectively. Poor IHDS performers also scored lower on MoCA (p = 0.039) but the correlation between IHDS and MoCA performance was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.004). Up to a third of poor IHDS performers (13/38) showed moderate depression (PHQ-9 > 9). In the multivariable analysis, a lower education level (p = 0.088), a history of prior psychiatric illness (p = 0.091) and the presence of moderate depression (p = 0.079) tended to be significantly associated with poor IHDS performance. At follow-up, 54 out of 57 were on cART, of which 46 (85%) had achieved viral suppression. Their blood CD4+ T-lymphocytes and IHDS scores were higher at follow-up compared to baseline values (both p < 0.001) but their MoCA performance was similar at both assessments. Of note, 17 participants in this subgroup scored below the IHDS cut-off at both assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Poor IHDS performance, and likely cognitive impairment, was frequently observed in treatment-naïve HIV-infected individuals in our locality. A considerable proportion continued to score below the IHDS cut-off at 6 months after cART. Depression was frequently observed in this vulnerable population and was associated with poor IHDS performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".