Value of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Identifying Ischemic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine the value of Montreal Cognitive assessment(MoCA) in identifying the patients with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia(VCIND) after ischemic stroke,and compare its results with those of Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE).Methods: MoCA and MMSE were performed on 76 patients with non-cognitive impairment(NCI) and 66 with VCIND by neurologists.Results: Total mean score of MoCA was 22.61±4.722 and that of MMSE was 27.35±2.615 with high correlation r=0.765 and P=0.000.For the patients with the level of education of 9 years and below,significant differences in each sub-items of MoCA were found between the two groups,except naming(P0.05).For the patients with the level of education above the average of 9 years,significant differences in each sub-items of MoCA were found between the two groups,except naming,calculation and orientation(P0.05).The initial optimal cut-off-point of MoCA was 24/25 in identifying VCIND according to the ROC curve analysis as well as the largest Youden's index.With the cut-off-point of 24/25,MoCA can provide a sensitivity of 64.29% and a specificity of 79.31%,which were much better than that of MMSE(sensitivity 64.2% and specificity 79.31%).Conclusion: MoCA is a valid screening scale in screening VCIND because of its high sensitivity and specificity.However,there is still restriction when its used in Chinese population.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".