Moderate‐to‐severe cognitive impairment is associated with both recent and chronic alcohol misuse in people with <scp>HIV</scp>: The New Orleans alcohol use in <scp>HIV</scp> (<scp>NOAH</scp>) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) profoundly impacts the nervous system, leading to neurological deficits including HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). HAND represents the most common neurological comorbidity among people with HIV (PWH), and alcohol use may exacerbate cognitive deficits, especially in vulnerable populations. This study investigated relationships between alcohol use and cognition in an underserved cohort of PWH, on the hypothesis that alcohol misuse exacerbates cognitive deficits. METHODS: Data collected from participants (n = 259; 66.7% male; mean age 52 ± 10 years) enrolled in the New Orleans Alcohol Use in HIV (NOAH) study were utilized for cross-sectional analysis. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and alcohol use was comprehensively measured using four metrics: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), 30-day timeline follow back (TLFB), lifetime drinking history, and phosphatidylethanol (PEth) levels. RESULTS: The average MoCA score among participants was 20.7 ± 4.5, with 86.5% demonstrating cognitive impairment (MoCA < 26). Individuals with MoCA scores below 18 (moderately or severely cognitively impaired) had a higher frequency of recent severe alcohol misuse and greater lifetime alcohol consumption. Participants at increased risk for AUD (AUDIT ≥ 16) also had worse global cognition and memory task performance than those with lower AUDIT scores; this was particularly true among those aged 50 and older. Analysis of the MoCA sub-score data indicated that participants with increased AUD risk had impairments in the cognitive domains of language and memory. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a high prevalence of cognitive impairment in the NOAH cohort and suggest that alcohol misuse contributes to global cognitive deficits in PWH, especially among individuals aged 50 and older. Further exploration of the impact of alcohol use on specific cognitive domains, including memory and language, should incorporate additional cognitive tasks. These findings highlight the importance of considering alcohol use and AUD risk as significant factors that may exacerbate cognitive deficits in vulnerable populations, including older PWH.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".