Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> In clinical practice it is imperative that patients with HIV, especially those with a concomitant mental illness, be screened for cognitive deficits. Not only is this important to document baseline levels of cognitive function, monitor for onset or progression of HIV-dementia, but to provide tools to improve treatment compliance for patients who demonstrate cognitive deficits. This study endeavored to determine what cognitive screening tools were most practical and effective to assess this population. <h3>Methods</h3> HIV-positive participants were recruited from a psychiatric inpatient facility. Participants were administered five cognitive screening tools: Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Trail Making Test- Parts A and B (TMT), and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). The sample consisted of 21 participants with diagnoses including bipolar disorder (42%), schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (25%), depressive and anxiety disorder (17%), psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (8%), delusional disorder (4%), and adjustment disorder (4%). (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders- Fourth Edition was utilized.) Fifty-eight percent of the sample had co-occurring substance use disorders. <h3>Results</h3> The mean age of participants was 42.08 years with 13.25 years of education. Ninety six percent of the sample were male. Fifty eight percent of the participants were Caucasian and 21% were Hispanic and 21% African American. Fifteen percent of the sample were newly diagnosed HIV-positive. Cognitive deficits were found on most of tools utilized. The RBANS demonstrated the most cognitive deficits consistent with the known literature in this population. The RBANS specifically revealed impairments in domains of delayed memory and attention. This, in turn, translates into problems retaining verbal and visual information. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Development of cognitive assessment tools that can be utilized by non-psychologists to target this high-risk population is necessary as an important prognostic and treatment guide. <h3>Disclosure</h3> No significant relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".