Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination in Detecting Subtle Cognitive Impairment Among Middle-Aged Outpatient U.S. Military Veterans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a relatively newly designed test that was developed as a tool to screen patients with mild cognitive problems that are not typically detected by the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). While early research suggests that the MoCA is more sensitive to subtle cognitive impairment than the MMSE, there is concern about potential decreased specificity when using the MoCA. The aim of the present study was to examine the comparative utility of using the MoCA and the MMSE to detect subtle cognitive impairment among a group of 82 middle-aged U.S. military veterans referred for outpatient neuropsychological testing. Using receiver operating characteristic analyses, the MoCA was shown to be a better predictor of subtle cognitive impairment on neuropsychological testing than the MMSE. When using an adjusted cutoff, the MoCA was shown to be more sensitive (i.e., 0.72 vs. 0.52) and nearly as specific as the MMSE (0.75 vs. 0.77).
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".