Efecto de la terapia antirretroviral sobre el deterioro cognitivo en pacientes con VIH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Determinar el efecto de la terapia antirretroviral sobre el deterioro cognitivo en pacientes con VIH atendidos en la unidad del Programa de control de enfermedades de transmisión sexual y SIDA (PROCETS): Epidemiología – HBT en el año 2019 – 2020. Método: Estudio cuasiexperimental, prospectivo; en el que se siguió durante 12 meses a 42 pacientes con VIH que iniciaban tratamiento antirretroviral (TARV) entre los meses diciembre 2019 – marzo 2020 en el Hospital Belén de Trujillo, de los cuáles 2 pacientes se perdieron, por lo que se trabajó con los 40 pacientes restantes, a estos se les aplicó el test de evaluación cognitiva de Montreal (MoCa test) para evaluar si existe o no deterioro cognitivo antes de iniciar el TARV y después de 12 meses de tratamiento antirretroviral, posteriormente se compararon los resultados y se determinó el efecto de la TARV sobre el deterioro cognitivo. Para esto se utilizó la prueba estadística de McNemar. Resultados: 19 pacientes (47.5%) presentaron deterioro cognitivo antes de iniciar el TARV, después de 12 meses de tratamiento la frecuencia de pacientes con deterioro cognitivo disminuyó significativamente a 11 (27.5%), p<0.021. Conclusión: La terapia antirretroviral disminuye el deterioro cognitivo en pacientes con VIH.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".