Pilot study assessing the Rotterdam Healthy Aging Score in a cohort of HIV-positive adults in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Rotterdam Healthy Aging Score (HAS) is a validated multidimensional index constructed from five health domains. We describe the HAS distribution in a cohort of HIV-positive adults and correlate it with health outcomes. DESIGN: A cross-sectional pilot study of 101 adults aged at least 40 years, on suppressive antiretroviral therapy attending a tertiary HIV clinic in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Participants completed questionnaires to calculate their HAS (range 0-14). Demographics, HAS and sub-scores were compared by age and sex. The HAS was compared with results of the Fried Frailty Score, Short Performance Physical Battery score (SPPB) and measures of health utilization. Kruskal--Wallis Rank-Sum and Fisher's exact tests were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age was 56 (50--62), 81 (80%) men and 50 (50%) born in Canada. Median (IQR) CD4 cell count was 574 (417--794) cells/μl. Median (IQR) HAS was 12 (10--13) with 39 (39%) achieving a score more than 12 (considered healthy aging). Younger participants experienced more depression, whereas women had greater pain. The HAS score correlated with the Fried Frailty Score (P = 0.008) and trended with the SPPB Score (P = 0.077). Those with the poorest HAS scores were more likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: The HAS ranged from 5 to 14 in this cohort of older HIV adults with 39% attaining scores in the 'healthy' range. The HAS correlated with measures of physical performance and health utilization. Further validation of an objective outcome in HIV-positive patients will facilitate evaluation of interventional studies to improve healthy aging.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".