Longitudinal Change in Performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief screening measure commonly used to determine cognitive status among older adults. Despite the popularity of the MoCA, there has been little research into how performance on the MoCA changes over time in healthy older adults. METHODS: The present study examined a sample of older adults (n = 53) recruited for a longitudinal study of healthy aging. Change in total MoCA score at three time points (baseline, 12 months, and 48 months) and scores from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status at five time points (RBANS; baseline 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48 months) were assessed using repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: Total MoCA score significantly increased across time, particularly between the first and second administrations. Scores did not significantly differ between the second (12 month) and third (48 month) administrations. When grouped by baseline performance, individuals who scored low at baseline significantly improved performance at 12-month testing, but had little change between 12- and 48-month testing. Conversely, individuals who scored high at baseline did not significantly change between baseline and 12-month testing, but improved between 12- and 48-month testing. RBANS scores did not significantly change over time. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the MoCA may be susceptible to practice effects, particularly between the first and second administrations. These practice effects should be taken into consideration when repeatedly employing the MoCA to screen for cognitive status in healthy older adults.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it