Relationship between the Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (ADL-Q) is an informant report questionnaire assessing functional impairment in daily living skills. Previous research has demonstrated correlations between ADL-Q and cognitive screening measures among patients with dementia. This study examined the relationship between ADL-Q and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a brief cognitive screening. METHODS: Records of 448 individuals from an outpatient neurology clinic were reviewed. Pearson correlations were calculated between ADL-Q scores and MoCA scores. Linear regression models were fit using demographic information to predict ADL-Q scores. MoCA scores were then added to the models to determine the increase in predictive value of the MoCA. RESULTS: Lower MoCA scores were associated with higher levels of functional impairment. For each model, adding the MoCA significantly improved model fit. DISCUSSION: Low scores on the MoCA, among patient's presenting for memory complaints, should raise concerns about functional decline and prompt for further assessment of functional ability.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".