Changes in Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scores Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in the detection of cognitive change over time in a community sample (age ranging from 58 to 77 years). The MoCA was administered twice approximately 3.5 years apart ( n = 139). Participants were classified as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitively intact at follow-up based on multidisciplinary consensus. We excluded 33 participants who endorsed cognitive complaints at baseline. The MCI group ( n = 53) showed a significant decrease in MoCA scores ( M = -1.83, p < .001, d = 0.64). When accounting for age and education, the MCI group showed a decline of 1.7 points, while cognitively intact participants remained stable. Using Reliable Change Indices established by cognitively intact group, 42% of MCI participants demonstrated a decline in MoCA scores. Results suggest that the MoCA can detect cognitive change in MCI over a 3.5-year period and preliminarily supports the utility of the MoCA as a repeatable brief cognitive screening measure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".