MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2382083013

A Preliminary Study of Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Chongqing City

2008· article· en· W2382083013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
YU Le-hu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Injury and Functional Reconstruction · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentReliability (semiconductor)CognitionMedicineCognitive Assessment SystemPsychologyAudiologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To study validity,reliability and sensitiuity of Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA)in Chongqing city.Methods:Twenty-two patients with cerebral diseases and thirty volunteers were tested by MoCA and MMSE.The validity,reliability and sensitivity of MoCA have been assessed.Results:There was a high correlation between result of MoCA and MMSE(r=0.902,P0.001).ICC of MoCA between 2 assessment officers was from 0.913 to 1.000.There was a significant difference between the total score of patients with cerebral diseases and volunteers tested by MoCA(P0.01).Conclusion:The Chinese version of MoCA is valid,reliable and sensitive.It can be clinically used to evaluate cases with mid or severe cognitive disorders in Chongqing city.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Injury and Functional ReconstructionSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207