A Central Auditory Test reveals differences between drug treatment regimens in adults living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This exploratory study examined whether central auditory tests show differences between people living with HIV (PLWH) treated with two predominant antiretroviral drug therapy (ART) regimens.Design Cross-sectional.Study Sample 253 PLWH (mean age 39.8 years) from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, China.Methods The Hearing in Noise Test speech reception threshold (SRT) assessed central auditory function and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) assessed cognition. The relationship between ART regimen and SRT was evaluated with multivariable linear regression incorporating age, HIV duration, and peripheral hearing ability. Multivariable logistic regression was used to ascertain if SRT and ART regimen predicted MoCA impairment.Results The two predominant ART regimens differed by one drug (zidovudine or tenofovir). Participants taking the zidovudine-containing regimen had poorer SRT performance (p=.012) independent of age and hearing thresholds. MoCA scores did not differ between drug regimens, but a negative relationship was found between SRT and MoCA impairment (p=.048).Conclusions ART regimens differed in their association with central auditory test performance likely reflecting neurocognitive changes in PLWH taking the zidovudine-containing regimen. Central auditory test performance also marginally predicted cognitive impairment, supporting further assessment of central auditory tests to detect neurocognitive deficits in PLWH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".