MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097761786 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.114.007253

Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-Minute Protocol Is a Brief, Valid, Reliable, and Feasible Cognitive Screen for Telephone Administration

2015· article· en· W2097761786 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrian Wong, David L. Nyenhuis, Sandra E. Black, Lorraine S. N. Law, Eugene Siu Kai Lo, Pauline Kwan, Lisa Au, Anne Chan, Ka Sing Wong, Ziad Nasreddine, Vincent Mok

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentProtocol (science)CognitionAdministration (probate law)Cognitive impairmentPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization working group proposed a brief cognitive protocol for screening of vascular cognitive impairment. We investigated the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol (MoCA 5-minute protocol) administered over the telephone. METHODS: Four items examining attention, verbal learning and memory, executive functions/language, and orientation were extracted from the MoCA to form the MoCA 5-minute protocol. One hundred four patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, including 53 with normal cognition (Clinical Dementia Rating, 0) and 51 with cognitive impairment (Clinical Dementia Rating, 0.5 or 1), were administered the MoCA in clinic and a month later, the MoCA 5-minute protocol over the telephone. RESULTS: Administration of the MoCA 5-minute protocol took 5 minutes over the telephone. Total score of the MoCA 5-minute protocol correlated negatively with age (r=-0.36; P<0.001) and positively with years of education (r=0.41; P<0.001) but not with sex (ρ=0.03; P=0.773). Total scores of the MoCA and MoCA 5-minute protocol were highly correlated (r=0.87; P<0.001). The MoCA 5-minute protocol performed equally well as the MoCA in differentiating patients with cognitive impairment from those without (areas under receiver operating characteristics curve for MoCA 5-minute protocol, 0.78; MoCA=0.74; P>0.05 for difference; Cohen d for group difference, 0.80-1.13). It differentiated cognitively impaired patients with executive domain impairment from those without (areas under receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.89; P<0.001; Cohen d=1.7 for group difference). Thirty-day test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA 5-minute protocol is a free, valid, and reliable cognitive screen for stroke and transient ischemic attack. It is brief and highly feasible for telephone administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations261
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207