ArticlePloS one2014
Classification models for neurocognitive impairment in HIV infection based on demographic and clinical variables.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders.Neuropsychology review · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of Cognitive Functions in People Living with HIV Before and After COVID-19 Infection.Viruses · 2025Observational
- International HIV Dementia Scale for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- COMT Val158Met Polymorphism, Cardiometabolic Risk, and Nadir CD4 Synergistically Increase Risk of Neurocognitive Impairment in Men Living With HIV.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Article
- HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders: A Global Perspective.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe used demographic and clinical data to design practical classification models for prediction of neurocognitive impairment (NCI) in people with HIV infection.
methodsThe study population comprised 331 HIV-infected patients with available demographic, clinical, and neurocognitive data collected using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. Classification and regression trees (CART) were developed to obtain detailed and reliable models to predict NCI. Following a practical clinical approach, NCI was considered the main variable for study outcomes, and analyses were performed separately in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients.
resultsThe study sample comprised 52 treatment-naïve and 279 experienced patients. In the first group, the variables identified as better predictors of NCI were CD4 cell count and age (correct classification [CC]: 79.6%, 3 final nodes). In treatment-experienced patients, the variables most closely related to NCI were years of education, nadir CD4 cell count, central nervous system penetration-effectiveness score, age, employment status, and confounding comorbidities (CC: 82.1%, 7 final nodes). In patients with an undetectable viral load and no comorbidities, we obtained a fairly accurate model in which the main variables were nadir CD4 cell count, current CD4 cell count, time on current treatment, and past highest viral load (CC: 88%, 6 final nodes).
conclusionPractical classification models to predict NCI in HIV infection can be obtained using demographic and clinical variables. An approach based on CART analyses may facilitate screening for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders and complement clinical information about risk and protective factors for NCI in HIV-infected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.