The Influence of Education on Chinese Version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Detecting Amnesic Mild Cognitive Impairment among Older People in a Beijing Rural Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the influence of education on the performance of Chinese version of Montreal cognitive assessment (C-MoCA) in relation to the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) in detecting amnesic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) among rural-dwelling older people C-MoCA and MMSE was administered and diagnostic interviews were conducted among community-dwelling elderly in two villages in Beijing. The performance of C-MoCA and MMSE in detecting aMCI was evaluated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Effect size of education on variations in C-MoCA scores was estimated with general linear model. Among 172 study participants (24 cases of aMCI and 148 normal controls), the AUC of C-MoCA was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.62-0.81, cutoff = 20/21), compared to AUC of MMSE of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.64-0.84, cutoff = 26/27). The performance of both C-MoCA and MMSE was especially poorer among those with low (0-6 years) education. After controlling for gender and age, education ( η(2) = 0.204) had a surpassing effect over aMCI diagnosis ( η(2) = 0.052) on variations in C-MoCA scores. Among rural older people, the MoCA showed modest accuracy and was no better than MMSE in detecting aMCI, especially in those with low education, due to the overwhelming effect of education relative to aMCI diagnosis on variations in C-MoCA performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".