Analysis on the Application Value of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Vascular Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the application value of the Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA) in diagnosis of the vascular cognitive impairment(VCI) in Ningxia Hui autonomous region. Methods: 126 patients with cerebro-vascular functional cognitive defects who were treated at the neurology department of People's Hospital of Ningxia Hui autonomous region were divided into non dementia(VCIND) vascular cognitive dysfunction group(53 cases), cognitive functioning(NCI) group(47 cases) and vascular dementia(VaD)group(26 cases). They were tested with simple mental state scale(MMSE) and MoCA cognitive ability assessment. The diagnosis effects were analyzed and compared between the three groups. Results: The cognitive dysfunction MoCA threshold 26 points defined as cognitive dysfunction, the MoCA score results of VCIND group showed a sensitivity of 86.8%, and an accuracy of 94.3%; and sensitivity of100.0% and accuracy of 88.5% for VaD group. Compared with MMSE, there was statistical significance(P0.05). Conclusion: MoCA had an excellent effect in VCI screening evaluation, with good reliability, sensitivity, specific degrees and clinical application.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".