An Abbreviated Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for Dementia Screening
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a cognitive screening instrument growing in popularity, but few studies have conducted psychometric item analyses or attempted to develop abbreviated forms. We sought to derive and validate a short-form MoCA (SF-MoCA) and compare its classification accuracy to the standard MoCA and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer disease (AD), and normal aging. METHODS: 408 subjects (MCI n = 169, AD n = 87, and normal n = 152) were randomly divided into derivation and validation samples. Item analysis in the derivation sample identified most sensitive MoCA items. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to develop cut-off scores and evaluate the classification accuracy of the SF-MoCA, standard MoCA, and MMSE. Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) analyses and comparison of ROC curves were used to compare classification accuracy of the three measures. RESULTS: Serial subtraction (Cramer's V = .408), delayed recall (Cramer's V = .702), and orientation items (Cramer's V = .832) were included in the SF-MoCA based on largest effect sizes in item analyses. Results revealed 72.6% classification accuracy of the SF-MoCA, compared with 71.9% for the standard MoCA and 67.4% for the MMSE. Results of NRI analyses and ROC curve comparisons revealed that classification accuracy of the SF-MoCA was comparable to the standard version and generally superior to the MMSE. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the SF-MoCA could be an effective brief tool in detecting cognitive impairment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it