Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Detecting Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Elderly Individuals: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been proved brief and sensitive to screen for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia in some developed countries or areas. However, little MoCA data are available from mainland China. In this study, the MoCA was applied to 8411 Chinese community dwellers aged 65 or older (6283 = cognitively normal [CN], 1687 = MCI, and 441 = dementia). The MoCA norms were established considering significant influential factors. The optimal cutoff points were 13/14 for illiterate individuals, 19/20 for individuals with 1 to 6 years of education, and 24/25 for individuals with 7 or more years of education. With the optimal cutoffs, the sensitivity of the MoCA was 83.8% for all cognitive impairments, 80.5% for MCI and 96.9% for dementia, and the specificity for identifying CN was 82.5%. These indicate that with optimal cutoffs, the MoCA is valid to screen for cognitive impairment in elderly Chinese living in communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".