Determining the Neurocognitive Status and the Functional Ability of Patients to Screen for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To adequately evaluate the extent of neurocognitive impairment in patient living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV), a battery of neuropsychological tests is typically administered which are neither cost effective nor time efficient in the outpatient clinical setting. The aim of the study was to assess neurocognitive status and functional ability of people living with HIV and find a brief screening tool to identify those who would benefit from a full diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: The study enrolled 160 PLHIV (80 pre-antiretroviral therapy [ART] and 80 on ART) fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Neurocognitive assessment and an assessment of Functional ability was done by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Lawton and Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale scale, respectively. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 75.6% males and 24.4% females with mean age of 44±10 years. The overall prevalence of HIV associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) in the study subjects was 52.5%. Of these, 47.5% had asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment and 5% had minor neurocognitive disorder. In MoCA, the most frequently affected domains were Language (97.6%), visuospatial ability (92.9%) and memory (71.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HAND in both groups were similar suggesting that neurocognitive impairment starts early in HIV infection. Memory and Visuospatial function impairment had the most predictive potential for detecting the presence of HAND. HAND screening is recommended in all PLHIV at enrolment into care. Simple tools like MoCA can be used in busy outpatient settings by healthcare workers to screen for HAND.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".