MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555002837 · doi:10.12740/pp/45368

Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection among people aged over 60? Meta-analysis

2016· review· pl· W2555002837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalia Ciesielska, Remigiusz Sokołowski, Ewelina Mazur, Marta Podhorecka, Anna Polak-Szabela, Kornelia Kędziora–Kornatowska

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatria Polska · 2016
Typereview
Languagepl
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaMini–Mental State ExaminationCognitionReceiver operating characteristicCredibilityPopulationPsychologyCognitive impairmentMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Screening tests play a crucial role in dementia diagnostics, thus they should be very sensitive for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment. Nowadays, the MiniMental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly used scale in cognitive function evaluation, albeit it is claimed to be imprecise for MCI detection. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), was created as an alternative method for MMSE. Aim. MoCA vs. MMSE credibility assessment in detecting MCI, while taking into consideration the sensitivity and specificity by cut-off points. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out by the authors using EBSCO host Web, Wiley Online Library, Springer Link, Science Direct and Medline databases. The following medical subject headings were used in the search: mild cognitive impairment, mini-mental state examination, Montreal cognitive assessment, diagnostics value. Papers which met inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen to be included in this review. At the end, for the evaluation of MoCA 20, and MMSE 13 studies were qualified. Research credibility was established by computing weighted arithmetic mean, where weight is defined as population for which the result of sensitivity and specificity for the cut-off point was achieved. The cut-offs are shown as ROC curve and accuracy of diagnosis for MoCA and MMSE was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for MoCA demonstrated that MCI best detection can be achieved with a cut-off point of 24/25 (n = 9350, the sensitivity of 80.48% and specificity of 81.19%). AUC was 0.846 (95% CI 0.823-0.868). For MMSE, it turned out that more important cut-off was of 27/28 (n = 882, 66.34% sensitivity and specificity of 72.94%). AUC was 0.736 (95% CI 0.718-0.767). CONCLUSIONS: MoCA test better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of MCI among patients over 60 years of age than MMSE.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.057
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations734
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatria PolskaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207