Assessing cognitive impairment in HIV-infected: a comparative study of international HIV Dementia Scale, HIV Dementia Scale Italian version and Montreal cognitive assessment in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of antiretroviral therapy (cART) and preventive measures has significantly enhanced the management of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. However, HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) remain a challenge. This study aims to compare cognitive impairment (CI) assessments in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) using the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS), HIV Dementia Scale-Italian Version (HDS-IT) and MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), while also identifying significant associations. The cross-sectional study encompassed 294 outpatient PLWHA (median age: 57) on cART. Participants underwent cognitive, functional, and depression assessments, laboratory testing and CNS Penetration-Effectiveness (CPE) index assessment. IHDS, HDS-IT and MoCA identified CI in different proportions of PLWHA. Factors such as age, education level, infection duration, and substance use were associated with CI. The IHDS score (OR 0.79) and Level CD4 + T-lymphocytes nadir (OR 0.99) demonstrated independent and negative associations with the CPE-index. IHDS and MoCA tests appear to be useful for detecting CI in outpatient settings, enabling healthcare providers to conduct initial evaluations of PLWHA. IHDS assessment may be used for detecting CI related to high CPE regimens, while the MoCA provides a comprehensive assessment, also in domains not studied by IHDS. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings and refine their clinical applicability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".