Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a Screening Test for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in a Cardiovascular Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While rates of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are relatively high in populations with cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, screening tests for MCI have not been evaluated in this patient group. This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool for detecting MCI in 110 patients (mean age 67.9 + 11.7 years; 60% female) recruited from hospital cardiovascular outpatient clinics. Mean MoCA performance was relatively low (22.8 + 3.8) in this group, with 72.1% of participants scoring below the recommended cutoff for cognitive impairment (<26). The presence of MCI was determined using the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Screening Module (NAB-SM). Both amnestic MCI and multiple-domain MCI were identified. The optimum MoCA cutoff for detecting MCI in this group was <24. At this cutoff, the MoCA's sensitivity for detecting amnestic MCI was 100% and for multiple-domain MCI it was 83.3%. Specificity rates for amnestic MCI and multiple-domain MCI were 50.0% and 52% respectively. The poor specificity of the MoCA suggests that it will have limited value as a screening test for MCI in settings where the overall prevalence of MCI is low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".