MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale to screen for dementia in Chinese patients with Parkinson's Disease.

2013· article· en· W2097831719 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ling Chen, Cuiyu Yu, Xiaosu Fu, Weiguo Liu, Ping Hua, Ning Zhang, Sheng‐Han Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Parkinson and Movement Disorder SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaConcordanceMedicineReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineCutoffConfidence intervalGold standard (test)Parkinson's diseaseDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia is one of the most distressing and burdensome health problems associated with Parkinson's Disease (PD). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA) is widely used to screen for dementia in PD patients, but the appropriate diagnostic cutoff score when used with Chinese PD patients is not known. AIM: Determine a diagnostic cutoff value of the Chinese version of the MoCA (MoCA-C) for Chinese PD patients and describe the characteristics of PD patients screened positive for dementia using the MoCA-C. METHODS: The presence of dementia in 616 PD patients and 85 community controls was determined using the Movement Disorder Society Task Force criteria (the gold standard diagnosis). We administered the MoCA-C to these individuals and used a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to identify the cutoff score of the MoCA-C that most efficiently identified dementia in both PD patients and community controls. Demographic and clinical characteristics of PD patients who were screened positive or negative for dementia using the MoCA-C were compared. RESULTS: A MoCA-C score of 23 was the optimal cutoff score for dementia in both patients and controls. Using this cutoff score, the sensitivity and specificity of the MoCA-C in PD patients were 0.70 and 0.77, respectively; the positive and negative predictive values were 0.59 and 0.85, respectively; and the overall concordance (kappa [95% confidence interval]) was 0.45 (0.39-0.52). The corresponding kappa value (concordance) in community controls was only 0.25 (0.05-0.45). Compared to PD patients who screened negative for dementia, those who screened positive for dementia were significantly impaired in all cognitive domains, including visuospatial and executive functioning, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall and orientation (all p<0.001). Among the PD patients, screening positive for dementia was independently associated with old age, low educational attainment, female gender and more severe motor impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The commonly recommended cutoff screening score for dementia of 26 on the MoCA it too high for PD patients in China; a cutoff score of 23 is more appropriate. Potential risk factors for dementia in Chinese PD patients include older age, less education, and more severe motor symptoms of PD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→