The MMSE and MoCA for Screening Cognitive Impairment in Less Educated Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
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 whether the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) can be used to screen for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in less educated patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of PD patients who had taken the Korean MMSE (K-MMSE), Korean MoCA (K-MoCA), and comprehensive neuropsychological tests. Predictive values of the K-MMSE and K-MoCA for dementia or MCI were analyzed in groups divided by educational level. RESULTS: The discriminative powers of the K-MMSE and K-MoCA were excellent [area under the curve (AUC) 0.86-0.97] for detecting dementia but not for detecting MCI (AUC 0.64-0.85). The optimal screening cutoff values of both tests increased with educational level for dementia (K-MMSE < 15 for illiterate, < 20 for 0.5-3 years of education, < 23 for 4-6 years, < 25 for 7-9 years, and < 26 for 10 years or more; K-MoCA < 7 for illiterate, < 13 for 0.5-3 years, < 16 for 4-6 years, < 19 for 7-9 years, < 20 for 10 years or more) and MCI (K-MMSE < 19 for illiterate, < 26 for 0.5-3 years, < 27 for 4-6 years, < 28 for 7-9 years, and < 29 for 10 years or more; K-MoCA < 13 for illiterate, < 21 for 0.5-3 years, < 23 for 4-6 years, < 25 for 7-9 years, < 26 for 10 years or more). CONCLUSION: Both MMSE and MoCA can be used to screen for dementia in patients with PD, regardless of educational level; however, neither test is sufficient to discriminate MCI from normal cognition without additional information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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