Neurocognitive Impairment and HIV Treatment Engagement in Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With HIV Who Report Chronic Pain and Substance Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored relationships between neurocognitive impairment (NCI), engagement in HIV care, and functional disability among sexual minority men aged 50 years or older living with HIV, chronic pain, and recent substance use. Sixty‐three participants completed cross‐sectional assessments including a neurocognitive screening measure, self‐reported HIV medication adherence, past‐year attendance at HIV‐care appointments, and indices of pain and functional impairment. Mean participant age was 57.2 years; most identified as White (55%), followed by Black/African American (42%). On average, participants reported moderate pain; 66.7% met DSM‐5 criteria for a substance use disorder. Average Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) performance reflected mild NCI. Regression analyses indicated an association between poorer MoCA performance and past‐year missed HIV‐care appointments ( B = −0.09, t (59) = −3.10, p = 0.004). Self‐reported cognitive impairment was associated with more missed HIV‐care visits ( B = 0.20, t (59) = 4.82, p < 0.001) and greater functional disability, whereas poorer semantic fluency was associated with fewer missed HIV‐care visits ( B = −0.49, t (59) = −3.99, p < 0.001). Increased brief neuropsychological assessment and linkage to tailored interventions for HIV‐care engagement and substance use mitigation are warranted to support PLWH with NCI in clinical care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".