| Title |
Performances on the CogState and Standard Neuropsychological Batteries Among HIV Patients Without Dementia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-011-0033-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edgar Turner Overton, John S. K. Kauwe, Robert Paul, Karen Tashima, David F. Tate, Pragna Patel, Charles C. J. Carpenter, David Patty, John T. Brooks, David B. Clifford |
| Abstract |
HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders remain prevalent but challenging to diagnose particularly among non-demented individuals. To determine whether a brief computerized battery correlates with formal neurocognitive testing, we identified 46 HIV-infected persons who had undergone both formal neurocognitive testing and a brief computerized battery. Simple detection tests correlated best with formal neuropsychological testing. By multivariable regression model, 53% of the variance in the composite Global Deficit Score was accounted for by elements from the brief computerized tool (P < 0.01). These data confirm previous correlation data with the computerized battery. Using the five significant parameters from the regression model in a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, 90% of persons were accurately classified as being cognitively impaired or not. The test battery requires additional evaluation, specifically for identifying persons with mild impairment, a state upon which interventions may be effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 21% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2013.
All research outputs
#15,526,761
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#2,392
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,119
of 126,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.