Frailty in people with HIV: a geriatric syndrome approach to aging with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Older persons with HIV (OPWH) are at risk of earlier onset of age-related comorbidities and common geriatric syndromes, notably frailty. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on recent developments related to frailty in OPWH, particularly as they relate to common co-occurrence of frailty with other geriatric syndromes which have an adverse impact on health outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies reliably demonstrate that frailty co-occurs with other geriatric syndromes due to common biologic risk factors. They often have an equal or greater impact on mortality and quality of life (QoL) compared to age-related comorbidities. Frailty is potentially reversible and risk factors for progression to or regression from a state of frailty have been identified. Importantly, HIV and Aging care centers have been initiated based on proven geriatric-based principles and frail OPWH should be referred. The role of agism and stigmatization are identified as contributors to states of frailty. SUMMARY: Recent findings focus on the important role geriatric syndromes especially frailty play in determining QoL in OPWH and this has led to efforts to operationalize frailty screening methods and to develop appropriate management protocols to limit or delay the impact of frailty on health.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".