Association between education level and HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of antiretroviral treatment, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) is common in HIV-positive (HIV+) patients, with an incidence of 30-50%. The relationship between education level and HAND has been evaluated in some studies, however, the results were inconsistent. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide compelling evidence on the association between education level and the risk of HAND. Reports were searched for in the databases of Medline, Embase and PsyclNFO. Studies evaluating the relationship between education level and HAND in adult HIV+ patients were included. The pooled odds ratio/risk ratio was analysed by using the random-effects model. Two subgroup analyses were performed according to the adjustment of educational level in the neurocognitive impairment assessment and the income level. In total, 18 studies were included. Six studies and 12 studies reported education level as the continuous variable and categorical variable, respectively. The methods used for the assessment of neurocognitive impairment in included studies were neuropsychological battery tests (n = 10), HIV Dementia Scale (n = 1), the International HIV Dementia Scale (n = 6) and the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (n = 1). The result showed that the risk of HAND in HIV+ patients who have lower education attainment was significantly higher than that in HIV+ patients who have higher education attainment. In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrated that HIV+ patients who have low education attainment carry higher risk of developing HAND compared with HIV+ patients who have high education attainment. This study highlighted the importance of early neurological screening for HIV+ patients who have low education level.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".