A Reliability the Montreal Cognitive Assessment on Cognitive impairment Following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to assess the reliability of the Korean version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K) and Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-K) and correlation between MoCA-K and MMSE-K to detect cognitive impairment following stroke determined by a neuropsychological battery. Fifty-two chronic stroke patients participated in this study. They divided two group, normal cognitive group (20 patients) with stroke and cognitive impairment group with stroke (32 patients), and research period was from October 2th. to November 30th., 2013. The subjects were measured K-MoCA and K-MMSE. Normal cognitive group showed the moderate reliability in K-MoCA and K-MMSE. Cognitive group showed the more moderate relaibility in K-MoCA and K-MMSE. There was positive correlation as the more score of K-MoCA gain, the more score of K-MMSE showed in both group. The results suggest that both clinical measures are moderately sensitive and proper feasibility to chronic post-stroke cognitive impairment. The both clinical tools suggest to use in research and clinical settings by a neuropshchological battery.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".