MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408051495 · doi:10.1007/s13365-025-01248-9

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

2025· article· en· W4408051495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maristella Belfiori, Francesco Salis, Lorenzo Stanisci, Benedetta Puxeddu, Francesco Perna, Paola Piano, Stefano Del Giacco, Antonella Mandas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroVirology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Cagliari
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeurocognitiveDementiaMedicineCognitionCartGerontologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Outpatient clinicPsychiatryClinical psychologyFamily medicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroVirologySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207