Cognitive remediation group therapy compared to mutual aid group therapy for people aging with HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: randomized, controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is an important comorbidity for people aging with HIV, and group therapy may ameliorate the associated anxiety and stress. Combination psychosocial interventions may have better outcomes than single technique approaches. A pilot, parallel design, two-arm trial randomized people aging with HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND) to Cognitive Remediation Group Therapy (Experimental; combination of brain training activities and mindfulness-based stress reduction) or Mutual Aid Group Therapy (Control). Outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and exploratory measures of anxiety, stress, coping, and use of mindfulness and brain training activities. Among 40 contacted participants, 15 replied, 12 recruited, and 10 completed. Assessors confirmed intervention delivery with satisfactory fidelity. The novel arm had statistically significant improvements in stress and mindfulness use compared to control, and brain training and mindfulness use sustained at 3-month follow-up. Requiring a HAND diagnosis made recruitment challenging. Further research should broaden eligibility to people aging with HIV and cognitive challenges.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it