Development and Validation of a Cognitive Reserve Index in HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the neuroHIV literature, cognitive reserve has most often been operationalized using education, occupation, and IQ. The effects of other cognitively stimulating activities that might be more amenable to interventions have been little studied. The purpose of this study was to develop an index of cognitive reserve in people with HIV, combining multiple indicators of cognitively stimulating lifetime experiences into a single value. METHODS: The data set was obtained from a Canadian longitudinal study (N = 856). Potential indicators of cognitive reserve captured at the study entry included education, occupation, engagement in six cognitively stimulating activities, number of languages spoken, and social resources. Cognitive performance was measured using a computerized test battery. A cognitive reserve index was formulated using logistic regression weights. For the evidence on concurrent and predictive validity of the index, the measures of cognition and self-reported everyday functioning were each regressed on the index scores at study entry and at the last follow-up [mean duration: 25.9 months (SD 7.2)], respectively. Corresponding regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: Professional sports [odds ratio (OR): 2.9; 95% CI 0.59-14.7], visual and performance arts (any level of engagement), professional/amateur music, complex video gaming and competitive games, and travel outside North America were associated with higher cognitive functioning. The effects of cognitive reserve on the outcomes at the last follow-up visit were closely similar to those at study entry. CONCLUSION: This work contributes evidence toward the relative benefit of engaging in specific cognitively stimulating life experiences in HIV.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".