MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998868379 · doi:10.1159/000338905

Differences in Cognitive Profile between TIA, Stroke and Elderly Memory Research Subjects: A Comparison of the MMSE and MoCA

2012· article· en· W1998868379 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDunhill Medical TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentStroke (engine)CognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive impairmentMemory clinicIschemic strokeGerontologyPhysical therapyAudiologyCardiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) appears more sensitive to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): over 50% of TIA and stroke patients with an MMSE score of ≥27 ('normal' cognitive function) at ≥6 months after index event, score <26 on the MoCA, a cutoff which has good sensitivity and specificity for MCI in this population. We hypothesized that sensitivity of the MoCA to MCI might in part be due to detection of different patterns of cognitive domain impairment. We therefore compared performance on the MMSE and MoCA in subjects without major cognitive impairment (MMSE score of ≥24) with differing clinical characteristics: a TIA and stroke cohort in which frontal/executive deficits were expected to be prevalent and a memory research cohort. METHODS: The MMSE and MoCA were done on consecutive patients with TIA or stroke in a population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study) 6 months or more after the index event and on consecutive subjects enrolled in a memory research cohort (the Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Ageing). Patients with moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment (MMSE score of <24), dysphasia or inability to use the dominant arm were excluded. RESULTS: Of 207 stroke patients (mean age ± SD: 72 ± 11.5 years, 54% male), 156 TIA patients (mean age 71 ± 12.1 years, 53% male) and 107 memory research subjects (mean age 76 ± 6.6 years, 46% male), stroke patients had the lowest mean ± SD cognitive scores (MMSE score of 27.7 ± 1.84 and MoCA score of 22.9 ± 3.6), whereas TIA (MMSE score of 28.4 ± 1.7 and MoCA score of 24.9 ± 3.3) and memory subject scores (MMSE score of 28.5 ± 1.7 and MoCA score of 25.5 ± 3.0) were more similar. Rates of MoCA score of <26 in subjects with normal MMSE ( ≥27) were lowest in memory subjects, intermediate in TIA and highest after stroke (34 vs. 48 vs. 67%, p < 0.001). The cerebrovascular patients scored lower than the memory subjects on all MoCA frontal/executive subtests with differences being most marked in visuoexecutive function, verbal fluency and sustained attention (all p < 0.0001) and in stroke versus TIA (after adjustment for age and education). Stroke patients performed worse than TIA patients only on MMSE orientation in contrast to 6/10 subtests of the MoCA. Results were similar after restricting analyses to those with an MMSE score of ≥27. CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA demonstrated more differences in cognitive profile between TIA, stroke and memory research subjects without major cognitive impairment than the MMSE. The MoCA showed between-group differences even in those with normal MMSE and would thus appear to be a useful brief tool to assess cognition in those with MCI, particularly where the ceiling effect of the MMSE is problematic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it