Comparison of the Impact of Zika and Dengue Virus Infection, and Other Acute Illnesses of Unidentified Origin on Cognitive Functions in a Prospective Cohort in Chiapas Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zika has been associated with a variety of severe neurologic manifestations including meningitis and encephalitis. We hypothesized that it may also cause mild to subclinical neurocognitive alterations during acute infection or over the long term. In this observational cohort study, we explored whether Zika cause subclinical or mild neurocognitive alterations, estimate its frequency and duration, and compare it to other acute illnesses in a cohort of people with suspected Zika infection, in the region of Tapachula in Chiapas, Mexico during 2016–2018. We enrolled patients who were at least 12 years old with suspected Zika virus infection and followed them up for 6 months. During each visit participants underwent a complete clinical exam, including a screening test for neurocognitive dysfunction (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score). We enrolled 406 patients [37 with Zika, 73 with dengue and 296 with other acute illnesses of unidentified origin (AIUO)]. We observed a mild and transient impact over cognitive functions in patients with Zika, dengue and with other AIUO. The probability of having an abnormal MoCA score (<26 points) was significantly higher in patients with Zika and AIUO than in those with dengue. Patients with Zika and AIUO had lower memory scores than patients with dengue (Zika vs. Dengue: −0.378, 95% CI−0.678 to −0.078; p = 0.014: Zika vs. AIUO 0.264, 95% CI 0.059, 0.469; p = 0.012). The low memory performance in patients with Zika and AIUO accounts for most of the differences in the overall MoCA score when compared with patients with dengue. Our results show a decrease in cognitive function during acute illness and provides no evidence to support the hypothesis that Zika might cause neurocognitive alterations longer than the period of acute infection or different to other infectious diseases. While effects on memory or perhaps other cognitive functions over the long term are possible, larger studies using more refined tools for neurocognitive functioning assessment are needed to identify these. Trial Registration: NCT02831699.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".