Construction validity of the MoCA-K to MMSE-K, LOTCA-G in the Community living Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
본 연구는 지역사회 노인을 대상으로 국내에서 사용되는 인지기능 검사인 LOTCA-G 및 MMSE-K와 MoCA-K와의 상관관계를 통해 경도인지장애를 탐지하는 데 사용되는 MoCA-K의 유용성을 알아보고자 하였다. 50명을 대상으로 한 각 평가도구들의 인지기능 점수는 MoCA-K가 30점 만점 중 <TEX>$22.72{\pm}5.85$</TEX>, LOTCA-G는 104점 만점 중에 <TEX>$96.28{\pm}6.82$</TEX>, MMSE-K는 30점 만점 중 <TEX>$25.08{\pm}3.78$</TEX>점이었다. 대상자들의 일반적 특성에 따른 각 평가도구들의 점수를 알아본 결과, 세 개의 평가도구 모두 남녀 간에는 유의한 차이가 없었으며, 연령과 교육수준에 따라서는 유의한 차이를 보였다. 노인들의 치매 선별검사로 널리 사용되고 있는 신뢰성과 타당성이 확보된 MMSE-K 및 LOTCA-G의 수행점수와 MoCA-K 수행점수 간에 높은 상관관계가 나타났으므로 MoCA-K는 노인들의 인지기능을 평가하는 데 있어 타당한 인지검사도구라는 것을 확인할 수 있다. This study was to examine usefulness of MoCA-K by comparing the correlation between LOTCA-G, MMSE-K and MoCA-K, regarding detecting elderly people's mild cognitive function in local community. The experiments in which the three different evaluation methods were employed, of this study were conducted on 50 elderly people. While the score of MoCA-K and MMSE-K was <TEX>$22.72{\pm}5.85$</TEX> out of 30 and <TEX>$25.08{\pm}3.78$</TEX> out of 30 respectively, the result of LOTCA-G was <TEX>$96.28{\pm}6.82$</TEX> out of 104. Observing each result of the three cognitive function assessment tools towards general characteristics showed no significant differences in gender. However, they were at considerable variance with age and education level of the example group. As all the three results of the assessment methods showed high correlation, it is reasonable to believe that MoCA-K is an appropriate evaluation tool to assess the cognitive function of old people.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".