Preliminary study of cognition assessment by Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale in the patients with vascular mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the feasibility of application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale(MoCA) chinese version to the assessment of global cognition in the patients with vascular mild cognitive impairment(vMCI).Methods Fifty vMCI patients and fifty healthy normal subjects were included in the study.Their cognitive functions were assessed with MoCA and Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE),and the results were analyzed and compared.Results There was a significant correlation between the MMSE and the MoCA scores in both groups(P0.05),and MoCA scores were significantly lower than MMSE scores(P0.05).The significant differences presented between vMCI group and control group in the comparison of sub-item score and total score in MoCA.The MoCA had the sensitivity of 84.0% and the specificity of 76.0% for detecting vMCI,the sensitivity and the specificity of MMSE was 46.0% and 98%,respectively.Conclusion The MoCA has higher sensitivity than the MMSE for cognitive assessment in the patients with vMCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".