Evaluating Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment in Older People Living with HIV Served by a Community‐Based Organization in Colorado, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Older people living with HIV (PLWH) experience unique pathophysiology contributing to accelerated and accentuated aging when compared to older adults living without HIV. Indeed, cognitive dysfunction is a significant age‐related risk exacerbated by HIV. This study investigated prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in older PLWH by employing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), which has a high sensitivity for assessing cognitive performance, and its relationship with HIV health, socioeconomic status, and functional aptitude. Method A cross‐sectional study was conducted in older PLWH ≥50 years receiving HIV‐related care and services at a Community‐Based Organization (CBO) between June and October 2022. The MoCA English Version (8.1) was used to screen cognitive performance. MCI was defined as MoCA scores 18‐26; 10‐17 for moderate cognitive impairment (MoCI); and ≤9 for dementia. Functional aptitude was measured by participants’ Ryan White Part A Wellness acuity scores (0‐41), where higher scores are indicative of lower functional aptitude. Result During the study period, 31 participants were screened; 64.5% were male and 88.9% had virologic suppression. The median age was 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] 6.3) and the median years living with HIV was 23 years (SD 8.9). The median MoCA score was 23 (SD 3.5): 21 (67.7%) with MCI; 3 (9.7%) with MoCI. The median acuity score was 18 (SD 11.9): 21 (SD 11.8) for MCI; 28 (SD 8.5) for MoCI. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that a lower MoCA score was associated with lower educational attainment (≤12 years) (r = 0.671, p = 0.0276) and low annual income (r = 0.789, p = 0.0043). A higher acuity score was not significantly associated with MoCA scores. Conclusion A majority of older PLWH screened were within range for M/MoCI. Thus, it is both necessary and ethically responsible for CBO’s serving older PLWH to integrate routine cognitive screening to identify early and pre‐symptomatic stages of impairment, providing prompt services to reduce symptoms and improve health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".