Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a Screen for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in African Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screen for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia was evaluated in African Americans attending an urban outpatient memory disorders clinic. Eighty one patients ≥50 years old were administered the MoCA and neuropsychological tests. Clinicians, blinded to the MoCA scores, reviewed the neuropsychological findings and reports of instrumental activities of daily living and they assigned a diagnosis of normal cognition (NC; N = 16), MCI (N = 38), or dementia (N = 27). The MoCA scores of the 3 groups were significantly different (NC > MCI > dementia). Using cutoff scores of ≤24 points for MCI and ≤22 points for dementia, the MoCA had .95 sensitivity and .63 specificity for MCI and .96 sensitivity and .88 specificity for dementia. The MoCA is a valid and cost-effective screen for cognitive impairment in African Americans but with a higher likelihood of falsely classifying persons with NC as having MCI.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".