Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Validation study for Frontotemporal Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The aim of the present study was to validate the MoCA as a cognitive screening test for behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia (bv-FTD) by examining its psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy. Three matched subgroups of participants were considered: bv-FTD (n = 50), Alzheimer disease (n = 50), and a control group of healthy adults (n = 50). Compared with the MMSE, the MoCA demonstrated consistently superior psychometric properties and discriminant capacity, providing comprehensive information about the patients' cognitive profiles. The diagnostic accuracy of MoCA for bv-FTD was extremely high (area under the curve AUC [MoCA] = 0.934, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.866-.974; AUC [MMSE] = 0.772, 95% CI = 0.677-0.850). With a cutoff below 17 points, the MoCA results for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and classification accuracy were significantly superior to those of the MMSE. The MoCA is a sensitive and accurate instrument for screening the patients with bv-FTD and represents a better option than the MMSE.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".