Screening for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND) in Adults Aged 50 and Over Attending a Government HIV Clinic in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Comparison of the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) and IDEA Six Item Dementia Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Validated screening tools for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are lacking for the newly emergent ageing population of people living with HIV (PLWH) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We aimed to validate and compare diagnostic accuracy of two cognitive screening tools, the International HIV dementia scale (IHDS), and the Identification and Interventions for Dementia in Elderly Africans (IDEA) screen, for identification of HAND in older PLWH in Tanzania. A systematic sample of 253 PLWH aged ≥ 50 attending a Government clinic in Tanzania were screened with the IHDS and IDEA. HAND were diagnosed by consensus American Academy of Neurology (AAN) criteria based on detailed clinical neuropsychological assessment. Strict blinding was maintained between screening and clinical evaluation. Both tools had limited diagnostic accuracy for HAND (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve 0.639-0.667 IHDS, 0.647-0.713 IDEA), which was highly-prevalent (47.0%). Accurate HAND screening tools for older PLWH in SSA are needed.
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".