Cognitive impairment increases in older people living with HIV: a systematic review of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The progressive increase in HIV infection among older adults requires constant research and monitoring, given that geriatric syndromes associated with HIV comorbidities have become an important public health problem. We reported this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and it has a central question: Is the incidence of cognitive impairment higher in older patients living with HIV than in their seronegative peers? The following databases were searched for this review: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were studies whose samples were ≥ 50% patients aged ≥ 50 years, with and without HIV, and a main outcome related to the incidence of cognitive impairment. Only cohort studies with follow-up lasting ≥ 24 months were considered. Three reviewers independently screened the documents for eligibility criteria, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), and evaluated the quality of evidence. A narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 10 798 trials were screened, 8884 were excluded, 14 were analyzed, and 5 were included in this review. Only 1 applied cognitive assessment tests; the rest used secondary data from the medical records. Most found that the incidence of cognitive disorders was higher among older people living with HIV, which highlights the need for public policies aimed at primary and secondary prevention strategies. Further research from other countries is still required. PROSPERO register (CRD42022321914).
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 | 0.017 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".