Screening for mild cognitive impairment in patients with heart failure: Montreal Cognitive Assessment versus Mini Mental State Exam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairments occur frequently in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), resulting in worse health outcomes than expected. These impairments can remain undetected unless specifically screened. There are limited sensitive screening measures available in nursing practice to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI). AIM: To compare the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) in screening for MCI in CHF patients. METHODS: The MMSE and MoCA were administered to 93 hospitalized CHF patients (70±11 years), without a history of neurocognitive problems. Patients with low MoCA scores (<26) were compared to those with low MMSE scores (<27). Two different parameters were examined between the MoCA and the MMSE: level of MCI agreement (Kappa coefficient) and task errors on assessed cognitive domains (χ2 test). RESULTS: Statistically more patients had low MoCA scores compared with low MMSE scores (66 vs. 30, p=0.02). The MoCA classified 38 (41%) patients as cognitively impaired that were not classified by the MMSE. A significantly low level of agreement was found (κ=0.25, p=0.001) between the MMSE and MoCA in identifying patients with scores suggestive of MCI. More task errors were observed on the MoCA cognitive domains compared with the MMSE cognitive domains. In 68% of patients with low cognitive scores, visuospatial task errors were observed on tasks from the MoCA compared with 22% on a similar task of the MMSE. CONCLUSION: The MoCA, a screening tool for MCI, identified subtle but potentially clinically relevant cognitive dysfunctions with greater frequency than 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".