Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment to cognitive function evaluation in the old-elderly
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA) to cognitive impairment evaluation in the old-elderly.Methods One hundred and seventeen retired residents aged 80 years or older were recruited and both MoCA and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were conducted to assess their cognitive conditions,then the results of both scales for subjects with different educational levels,different ages and different genders were analyzed with SPSS software.Results MoCA scores ranged from 4 to 29(22.72±4.35),MMSE scores ranged from 5 to 30(26.35±3.30).The overall scores of MoCA were lower than those of MMSE.Additionally,MoCA scored less than MMSE for different educational levels,different ages as well as for different genders.The score differences between the two scales were statistically significant(P0.05,P0.01).The items of MoCA sorted in descending order on the basis of the damage degree were as follows;delayed recall,visuospatial and executive function,language, abstract thinking,orientation,naming,calculation,attention.Age(β=-0.293,P=0.001) and educational level(β=0.685,P=0.009) were influential factors for MoCA scores.Conclusion MoCA is applicable to evaluating cognitive impairment of the old-elderly and is better than MMSE in diagnosis of cognitive impairment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it