MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022564096 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1702799

Risk Factors of Asymptomatic Neurocognitive Impairment in People Living with HIV in an Indian Cohort

2020· article· en· W3022564096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Salil Gupta, Nirmala Venugopal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCohortInternal medicineAsymptomaticCohort studyDementiaCognitionPhysical therapyDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment (ANI) in people living with HIV (PLWH) can lower quality of life, reduce drug compliance, increase unemployment, and reduce life expectancy. Objective This study was aimed to identify risk factors of ANI in PLWH in an Indian cohort and explore the usefulness of Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score (MoCA) as screening tools. Methods PLWH under follow-up at an antiretroviral treatment center who were 18 to 60 years were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they had any cognitive symptoms, previous history of any central nervous system (CNS) pathology, or any systemic illness. Included patients were subjected to domain wise standardized neuropsychological battery. Six domains were screened including language, attention, speed, memory, sensory motor skills, and executive. Abnormal dysfunctional scores in at least two domains were taken as suggestive of ANI. The two groups thus created, ANI and normal cognition, were evaluated for differences. Variables evaluated as risk factors included age, sex, handedness, education, presence of at least one vascular risk factor, duration of disease, biochemical profile, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) count (both current and nadir) HIV viral load, and use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and its CNS penetration effectiveness (CPE). MMSE and MoCA were also done in all patients. Statistical Analysis Regression analysis was used to find out significant variables. MMSE and MoCA scores were correlated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also determined Results Three hundred and eighty-four patients were included out of which 185 (48%) had ANI. In the multivariate regression analysis, female sex with odds Ratio (OR) of 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21–2.79, p < 0.01), education below 10 years with OR = 2.43 (95% CI: 1.56–3.80, p < 0.01) and presence of at least one vascular risk factor with OR = 2.52 (95% CI: 1.67–3.80, p < 0.01) were found to be significant. Both MMSE and MoCA had a high PPV (0.99 and 0.97, respectively) but poor NPV (0.64 and 0.75) below a score of 25 with MoCA scoring slightly better. Both, MMSE and MoCA correlated well with each other. Conclusion Nearly half of our patients had ANI, despite being on ART. Majority of patients were on ART with CPE > 7 and had relatively preserved immune status. Female HIV patients with at least one vascular risk factor and less than 10 years of formal education were found to be at risk for ANI. MMSE and MoCA are not good screening tools to identify this condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosciences in Rural PracticeSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207