Comparison of validity of Montreal cognitive assessment and mini-mental state examination in screening vascular cognitive impairment in cerebral vascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the validity of Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA)and mini-mental state examination (MMSE)in screening vascular cognitive impairment(VCI)and its main subtype vascular demantia(VaD)in cerebral vascular disease(CVD). Method:One hundred and twenty-seven patients from both neurology clinic and ward of hospital of traditional Chinese medicine of Guangdong province with cerebral vascular disease(CVD)meeting studying criterion were included.All the subjects were administered a neuropsychological tests battery,which included measurements in the following 5 cognitive domains:memory,executive abilities,attention,visuospatial,language,and were administered MoCA and MMSE as well.An operationalized criteria of cognitive deficits was used,results of every subjects'cognitive deficits and diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive impairment-no dementia(VCIND)and VaD were combined as reference resources by neurology clinicians to diagnose VCIND and VaD.This diagnostic result was considered as the relative clinical gold standard to draw receiver operating curve(ROC)and to compare the validity of MoCA and MMSE in screening VCI in CVD. Result:One hundred and one subjects met the criteria of cognitive deficits,and 55 of them were diagnosed as VaD,46 of them were VCIND,the other 26 subjects were cognitive normal.The discriminant validity in detecting VCI from CVD was the MoCA superior to the MMSE(receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC):MoCA(0.956±0.0177)MMSE(0.920±0.0233),Z=2.339,P=0.019);The discriminant validity in detecting VaD from VCD was similar for the MoCA and the MMSE(receiver operating characteristic AUC MoCA(0.945± 0.0194)and MMSE(0.931±0.0248),Z=1.453,P=0.146). Conclusion:The MoCA possess adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument in detecting VCI from CVD,and is superior to the MMSE,while they have the similar validity in detecting VaD from CVD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".