Correlates of the HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders among adults living with HIV in Dodoma region, central Tanzania: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) continue to manifest despite advancements and improved antiretroviral therapy coverage. Neurocognitive impairment is a significant predictor of poor prognosis related to poor antiretroviral therapy adherence and retention in HIV care. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined 397 participants attending cared for and treatment at Dodoma Regional Referral Hospital (DRRH) and selected by systematic sampling. The combination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS), and The Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) were used to assess HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. Factors associated with HAND were determined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 397 participants, 234(59.1%) met the criteria for HAND with 231(58.2%) comprising asymptomatic neurocognitive disorder (ANI) or mild neurocognitive disorders (MND), and 3 (0.76%) HIV- associated dementia (HAD). Participants with HAND had significantly poorer performance in each cognitive domain on both MoCA and IHDS. Under multivariable regression, age of 55 years or above with Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 3.5 (95%CI: 1.1, 11.6), p = 0.041 and female gender (AOR): 2.7 (95%CI: 1, 6, 4.5), p<0.001 were significantly associated with HAND. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy AOR: 0.4(95%CI: 0.2, 1.0), p = 0.044, and attaining primary education AOR: 0.3(95%CI: 0.1, 0.8), p = 0.01 or secondary education AOR: 0.1(95%CI: 0.03, 0.2), p<0.001 compared to having no formal education showed good cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders are common in HIV, especially ANI and MND, are common in HIV infected Tanzanians. Both socio-demographic and clinical variables influence neurocognitive functioning in this population. Screening for mild neurocognitive disorders may be indicated if effective treatment becomes available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".