MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340516762 · doi:10.1177/1747493016632238

A comparison between the MoCA and the MMSE visuoexecutive sub-tests in detecting abnormalities in TIA/stroke patients

2016· article· en· W2340516762 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luciano A. Sposato, Peter M. Rothwell, Vladimir Hachinski, Sarah T. Pendlebury

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMini–Mental State ExaminationMedicineCognitionPopulationCohortMental status examinationStroke (engine)PsychiatryInternal medicineCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Executive dysfunction predicts stroke risk, dementia, and mortality. The Montreal cognitive assessment detects more visuoexecutive dysfunction than the mini-mental state examination but it is unclear which of the individual Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive items contribute to the better performance of the Montreal cognitive assessment. We therefore determined the relative performance of the Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive sub-tests versus the mini-mental state examination pentagon copying in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack. METHODS: Mini-mental state examination and Montreal cognitive assessment were administered to a prospective, population-based cohort of stroke, and transient ischemic attack patients from the Oxford Vascular Study at six month or five-year follow-up between November 2007 and June 2009. We compared the proportion of participants with incorrect Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive tasks and sub-tasks but correct mini-mental state examination pentagon copying versus the proportion with incorrect MMSE pentagon copying but correct visuoexecutive Montreal cognitive assessment sub-test and individual sub-test items. RESULTS: Among 412 patients assessed with the mini-mental state examination and Montreal cognitive assessment, the Montreal cognitive assessment detected more visuoexecutive dysfunction than the mini-mental state examination (OR 11.4, 95% CI 8.2-15.8, p < 0.001). The likelihood of incorrect mini-mental state examination pentagon copying increased as the numbers of correct MoCA visuoexecutive responses decreased: 2/106 (1.9%) and 9/10 (90.0%) incorrect mini-mental state examination pentagon copying for 5/5 and 0/5 correct Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive tasks, respectively (p for trend 0.005). Each Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive sub-task, including trails (39.6%), cube copying (49.5%), and clock drawing (59.0%), detected more patients with visuoexecutive dysfunction than the mini-mental state examination pentagon copying (20.6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: All three of the Montreal cognitive assessment visuoexecutive sub-tests detected more abnormalities than the mini-mental state examination pentagon copying and thus contributed to the over 10-fold superiority of Montreal cognitive assessment over the mini-mental state examination for detection of visuoexecutive 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207