Clock Drawing in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Recommendations for Dementia Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clock drawing is part of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test but may have administration and scoring limitations. We assessed (1) the reliability of the MoCA clock criteria relative to a published error scoring approach, (2) whether command-only administration could distinguish dementia from cognitively intact individuals and (3) the value of adding a clock copy condition to the MoCA. METHODS: Three novice raters and clocks from dementia and control participants were used to assess the 3 aims. RESULTS: MoCA interrater and intrarater reliability were low (i.e. intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.12-0.31) and required repeat training. Clocks drawn to command classified dementia at chance. Inclusion of a copy condition demonstrated expected dementia subgroup patterns. CONCLUSION: Reliable clock scoring with MoCA criteria requires practice. Supplementing a clock copy to the standard MoCA test (takes <1 min) will improve dementia assessment.
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 | 0.024 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".