Hippocampal MRI volumetry is associated with mild cognitive impairment in patients with HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between hippocampal volume and neurocognitive impairment in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has not been studied in the Mexican population.This study compared the hippocampal volume in Mexican patients with HIV infection and normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment (MCI).Hippocampal volume was determined manually with structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≥ 26 defined patients with normal cognition and 19 to < 26 points defined patients with MCI.A total of 76 patients living with HIV were included: 56 men and 20 women with a mean age of 34.1 ± 10.11 years.Out of 76 patients, 50 (65.8%)were diagnosed with MCI with a MoCA test < 26.The mean MoCA score was lower in patients with MCI (22.9 ± 1.8) than in patients with normal cognition (26.6 ± 0.8) (p < 0.001).Hippocampal volume was lower in patients with MCI, with a mean of 2.81 ± 1.47 cm 3 (right hippocampus) and 2.70 ± 1.35 cm 3 (left hippocampus).In contrast, in patients with normal cognition, the mean was 3.34 ± 1.91 cm 3 (right hippocampus) and 3.21 ± 1.70 cm 3 (left hippocampus) (p < 0.001).This is the first study in Mexican patients with HIV infection, showing that a decrease in hippocampal MRI volume is associated with MCI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".