A comparison between the MoCA and the MMSE visuoexecutive sub-tests in detecting abnormalities in TIA/stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".