Validation of the Hebrew Version of the MoCA Test as a Screening Instrument for the Early Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The English version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test has been shown to be reliable in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, the sensitivity and specificity of the Hebrew version of this instrument are yet to be determined. METHODS: The study population consisted of 2 groups of older individuals, 74 patients diagnosed with MCI and 80 patients who were cognitively asymptomatic. Cognitive evaluation included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Mindstreams computerized cognitive assessment, and the MoCA test. RESULTS: The Hebrew version of MoCA distinguished between cognitively asymptomatic older individuals and those with MCI, with a sensitivity of 94.6% and a specificity of 76.3%, using a cutoff of 26/30 points. CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew version of the MoCA test is effective for identifying MCI in older patients. As a screening instrument for MCI, its higher sensitivity makes it preferable o the MMSE, which is used extensively in the clinical setting.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".