MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462104966 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.399

Depressive Symptoms Negatively Impact Montreal Cognitive Assessment Performance: A Memory Clinic Experience

2016· article· en· W2462104966 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mervin Blair, Kristy Coleman, Sarah Jesso, Véronique Desbeaumes Jodoin, Kathy Smolewska, Erin M. Warriner, Elizabeth Finger, Stephen Pasternak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesWestern UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalRobarts Clinical TrialsParkwood Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMemory clinicMoodCognitionDementiaExecutive dysfunctionPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyDepressive symptomsExecutive functionsEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive impairmentMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a general cognitive screening tool that has shown sensitivity in detecting mild levels of cognitive impairment in various clinical populations. Although mood dysfunction is common in referrals to memory clinics, the influence of mood on the MoCA has to date been largely unexplored. METHOD: In this study, we examined the impact of mood dysfunction on the MoCA using a memory clinic sample of individuals with depressive symptoms who did not meet criteria for a neurodegenerative disease. RESULTS: Half of the group with depressive symptoms scored below the MoCA-suggested cutoff for cognitive impairment. As a group, they scored below healthy controls, but above individuals with Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. A MoCA subtask analysis revealed a pattern of executive/attentional dysfunction in those with depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This observed negative impact of depressive symptomatology on the MoCA has interpretative implications for its utility as a cognitive screening tool in a memory clinic setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207