Value of the MoCA Test as a Screening Instrument in Multiple Sclerosis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Since a large proportion of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients exhibit cognitive deficits, it is important to have reliable and cost-effective screening measures that can be used to follow patients effectively. the objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test in detecting cognitive deficits in MS patients. METHODS: Forty-one (70.1% women, mean age 44.51 ±7.43) mildly impaired (EDSS: 2.26 ±1.87) MS patients were recruited for this study. In addition to the MoCA, they were administered the MSNQ-P (patient version) and the MSNQ-I (informant version), the bDI-FS and a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: there were significant correlations between the MoCA test and the three factors derived from the neuropsychological evaluation (Executive/speed of processing, Learning, Delayed recall). the MoCA test was correlated with the MSNQ-I but only marginally with the MSNQ-P. In addition, there was no significant correlation between the MSNQ-P and the neuropsychological factors, whereas significant correlations were found between two of those factors (Learning and Delayed recall) and the MSNQ-I, suggesting that the informant version is more reliable than the patient version for the presence of cognitive deficits. CONCLUSION: the results obtained in the present study support the value of the MoCA test as a screening tool for the presence of cognitive dysfunction in MS patients, even in patients with mild functional disability (EDSS).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it