The association between anticholinergic/sedative burden and physical frailty in people aging with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the strength of the association between anticholinergic/sedative burden and concurrent physical frailty in people aging with HIV. DESIGN: This cross-sectional analysis examined baseline data from 824 adults with a mean age of 53 enrolled in the Positive Brain Health Now study. METHODS: Anticholinergic medications were identified using four methods: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), and the anticholinergic list of the Anticholinergic and Sedative Burden Catalog (ACSBC). Sedatives were identified using the Sedative Load Model (SLM) and the sedative list of the ACSBC. Physical frailty was assessed using a modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) based on self-report items. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, lifestyle considerations, HIV-related variables, comorbidities, and co-medication use, were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Anticholinergic burden demonstrated associations with frailty across various methods: total anticholinergic burden (OR range: 1.22-1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) range: 1.03-1.66), sedative burden (OR range: 1.18-1.24; 95% CI range: 1.02-1.45), high anticholinergic burden (OR range: 2.12-2.74; 95% CI range: 1.03-6.19), and high sedative burden (OR range: 1.94-2.18; 95% CI: 1.01-4.34). CONCLUSION: The anticholinergic and sedative burdens may represent modifiable risk factors for frailty in people aging with HIV. Future studies should evaluate the effects of reducing anticholinergic and sedative burdens on frailty outcomes and explore the prognostic value of diverse scoring methods.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".