The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is Superior to the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) in Detection of Korsakoff’s Syndrome
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
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) are brief screening instruments for cognitive disorders. Although these instruments have frequently been used in the detection of dementia, there is currently little knowledge on the validity to detect Korsakoff's syndrome (KS) with both screening instruments. KS is a chronic neuropsychiatric disorder associated with profound declarative amnesia after thiamine deficiency. A representative sample of 30 patients with KS and 30 age-, education-, gender- and premorbid-IQ-matched controls was administered the MoCA and MMSE. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated in addition to the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for various cut-off points on the MoCA and MMSE. Compared with the MMSE, the MoCA demonstrated consistently superior psychometric properties and discriminant validity--AUC: MoCA (1.00 SE .003) and MMSE (0.92 SE .033). When applying a cut-off value as suggested in the manuals of both instruments, the MMSE (< 24) misdiagnosed 46.7% of the patients, while the MoCA (< 26) diagnosed all patients correctly. As a screening instrument with the most optimal cut-offs, the MoCA (optimal cutoff point 22/23, 98.3% correctly diagnosed) was superior to the MMSE (optimal cutoff point 26/27, 83.3% correctly diagnosed). We conclude that both tests have adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument for the detection of KS, but the MoCA is superior to the MMSE for this specific patient population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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