Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment: validation of the Brazilian version of the Montreal cognitive assessment
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
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief cognitive schedule that has been developed for the screening of patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). MCI is recognized as a high-risk state for Alzheimer's disease. The aim of the present study is to examine the reliability and validity of the Brazilian version of the MoCA test (MoCA-BR) in a sample of older individuals with at least 4 years of education. METHODS: The MoCA-BR was administered to 112 older adults who were classified into three diagnostic groups according to their cognitive state (Alzheimer's disease, n = 28; MCI, n = 43; normal controls, n = 41). This procedure was based on clinical and neuropsychological data. The performance in the MoCA-BR was compared with the Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and the Cambridge Cognitive Examination. Diagnostic accuracy was examined with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the MoCA-BR was 0.75. Temporal stability (retesting after 3 months) using intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.75 (p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of the MoCA-BR for MCI were 81% and 77%, respectively, with a cut-off score of 25 points. The area under the ROC curve for predicting MCI was 0.82 ± 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that the MoCA-BR maintains its core diagnostic properties rendering it a valid and reliable tool for the screening of MCI among older individuals with at least 4 years of education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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