Physical deficits among people living with HIV: a review of the literature and implications for rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Life expectancy has improved significantly among people living with HIV (PLWH). However, there is evidence of an accelerated aging process among PLWH, which includes physical impairments. Relative to the other consequences of aging among PLWH, physical impairments have not received much attention in the literature. There is an emerging need to study physical deficits in this population.Objectives: The main purposes of this review are to explore factors contributing to physical dysfunction in this population, describe common physical impairments, discuss physical performance measures, and make recommendations for rehabilitation professionals regarding exercise prescription for PLWH.Major Findings: Factors contributing to physical impairments include HIV severity, comorbidities, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Problems with muscle strength and mass, gait, static and dynamic balance, aerobic capacity, and frailty are common among PLWH and can have a negative impact on fall risk and functional performance. Several physical performance measures can be used for screening and assessment purposes, including the Short Physical Performance Battery, Six-Minute Walk Test, 5-times sit-to-stand, Community Mobility and Balance Scale, and gait speed tests.Conclusions: Physical impairments are prevalent among PLWH. Rehabilitation providers should identify PLWH who are at risk of developing physical impairments. Exercise interventions including aerobic, resistance, and balance training appear to benefit PLWH. More research is warranted to investigate outcome measures that should be routinely used in clinical practice and the efficacy of exercise in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".