MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149659204 · doi:10.1002/mds.21837

A comparison of the mini mental state exam to the montreal cognitive assessment in identifying cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease

2007· article· en· W2149659204 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionCognitive impairmentParkinson's diseasePsychologyMini–Mental State ExaminationAudiologyDiseasePsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is an important and increasingly recognized problem in Parkinson's disease (PD). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) often fails to detect early cognitive decline. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) is a brief tool developed to detect mild cognitive impairment that assesses a broader range of domains frequently affected in PD. The scores on the MMSE and the MoCA were compared in 88 patients with PD. A pronounced ceiling effect was observed with the MMSE but not with the MoCA. The range and standard deviation of scores was larger with the MoCA(7-30, 4.26) than with the MMSE(16-30, 2.55). The percentage of subjects scoring below a cutoff of 26/30 (used by others to detect mild cognitive impairment) was higher on the MoCA (32%) than on the MMSE (11%) (P < 0.000002). Compared to the MMSE, the MoCA may be a more sensitive tool to identify early cognitive impairment in 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.312 · 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