Validity of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Non-English speaking patients with Parkinson′s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a brief and easy screening tool for accurately testing cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson's disease. We tested its validity for use in non-English (Malayalam) speaking patients with Parkinson's disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Malayalam (a south-Indian language) version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment and applied to 70 patients with Parkinson's disease and 60 age- and education-matched healthy controls. Metric properties were assessed, and the scores were compared with the performance in validated Malayalam versions of Mini Mental Status Examination and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination. RESULTS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Malayalam showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability and its scores correlated with Mini Mental Status Examination (patients: R = 0.70; P < 0.001; healthy controls: R = 0.26; P = 0.04) and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (patients: R = 0.8; P < 0.001; healthy controls: R = 0.52; P < 0.001) scores. CONCLUSION: This study establishes the reliability of cross-cultural adaptation of Montreal Cognitive Assessment for assessing cognition in Malayalam-speaking Parkinson's disease patients for early screening and potential future interventions for cognitive dysfunction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".