Frailty and prefrailty phenotypes increase the odds of abnormal cognitive impairment screens in people with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether prefrail and frail people with HIV (PWH) have a higher risk of cognitive impairment on screens. METHODS: Analysis of PWH aged 70 or older included in the ANRS EP66 SEPTAVIH cohort, on antiretroviral therapy for at least 12 months and with a MoCA test at enrolment. Adjusted risk of a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) less than 26 was compared in frail/prefrail versus robust PWH. RESULTS: A total of 503 PWH were enrolled with a median age of 73 years, IQR [71-77], 81.5% were male, 73.8% were French natives, 32.9% had low socio-economic status (EPICES score >30.2), and 41.3% were college graduates; 27.3% had a history of clinical AIDS. A total of 294 (58.5%) PWH had a MoCA score less than 26; 182 (36%) a MoCA score 23 or less. Frailty, prefrailty and robustness were found in 13.1, 63.6 and 23.3% participants, respectively. PWH with a MoCA less than 26 had a significantly higher risk of being frail/prefrail, this before [odds ratio (OR) = 2.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50-3.57], and after adjustment for confounders (OR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.07-3.01). The risk of being frail/prefrail in patients with a MoCA 23 or less was higher (adjusted OR = 2.75; 95% CI 1.46-5.16). Other factors independently associated with a MoCA less than 26 were older age, birth outside of France and a lower education level and being diabetic. CONCLUSION: Abnormal MoCA screens were frequent in our cohort of PWH aged 70 or older with controlled HIV disease. Cognitive impairment should be systematically screened in frail/prefrail PWH. Frailty/prefrailty, diabetes and social factors, but not HIV-related factors, are important determinants of cognitive function in PWH with controlled disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".