Prevalence and Correlates of Frailty Among Older Adults Living With HIV in the CHANGE HIV Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advancements in treatment have resulted in improved survival among people living with HIV. However, additional years of life are not necessarily spent in good health, as frailty tends to develop at a younger age among people living with HIV. We set out to examine the prevalence of frailty and its correlates among older adults living with HIV in Canada, with a primary interest in nadir CD4 count. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Correlates of Healthy Aging in Geriatric HIV (CHANGE HIV) study, a Canadian cohort of people living with HIV aged 65 years or older. Participants were assessed using the Fried Frailty Phenotype at cohort entry, and those meeting ≥3 criteria were characterized as frail. We used Poisson regression with robust standard errors to estimate the association between nadir CD4 count and frailty, as well as age, gender, time since HIV diagnosis, comorbidities, marital status, and loneliness. RESULTS: Among 439 participants included in this analysis (median age 69 years, interquartile ranges 67-73), prevalence of frailty was 16.6%. Frailty was not associated with nadir CD4 count. Not being in a relationship (aRR 2.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.30) and greater degree of loneliness (aRR 1.25 per 10 point increase on UCLA loneliness scale, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.44) were associated with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty occurred in 16.6% of older adults living with HIV in this cohort. While nadir CD4 count did not correlate with frailty, being single and lonely did, highlighting the importance of recognizing and addressing these social vulnerabilities among people aging with HIV.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".