Mini mental state exam versus Montreal cognitive assessment in patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the MMSE and MoCA to identify cognitive dysfunction in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 81 (29 female, 52 male) AMD patients who were recruited from the Ophthalmology Department of Kırıkkale University during 2012. Participants were screened for cognitive impairment using the MMSE and MoCA. The scores were recorded for all participants. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a score less than 21 on either test. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects who scored below a cut off of 21/30 was higher on the MoCA (48.1%) than on the MMSE (18.5%) (p = 0.05). The range and standard deviation of scores was larger with the MoCA (7-30, 5.34) than with the MMSE (19-30, 3.26). There was a more pronounced ceiling effect of the MMSE than of the MoCA. The mean MMSE scores of dry-and wet-type AMD patients was significantly higher than the MoCA scores of the same patients (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA seems to be more sensitive than the MMSE to early cognitive impairment in AMD patients.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".