MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515562535 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acw043.188

C-39A Progressive Study of Age and Education Norms for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

2016· article· en· W2515562535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B Ashworth, Bill Myers, K Hippman, Sandra Viggiani, Cynthia King, Kathleen Hutchinson, K DeRoche, Martin Otundo Richard, L Dilks

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive impairmentMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of this project was a continuation in development of norms for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). A pilot project was begun in 2014 to determine the norms for the MOCA and the variability with age and education. The study was based on the model used by Crum and associates in developing population based norms for the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE). Method: De-identified MOCA data (n = 1278) gathered from a community clinic, academic setting and general population were used. The mean age was 30.63 (15.63) years, with a range of 18 to 90 years of age. Average education level was 13.53 (2.36) years, with a range of 3 to 30 years. The group was comprised of 574 males and 704 females. MOCA scores ranged from 8 to 30. Research interns supervised by a licensed psychologist gathered data from previously administered MOCA assessments. An age to education matrix was created with mean scores and standard deviations. Results:

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207