Validity of the Georgian Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test has been shown to be a reliable tool to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI), however, no Georgian language version exists. The goal of this study is to determine the validity, reliability, and accuracy of Georgian version of MoCA in the evaluation of amnestic MCI (aMCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Montreal Cognitive Assessment was translated into Georgian language and was administered to healthy participants (HP) and patients with aMCI and AD. We studied 46 HS, 20 patients with aMCI, and 20 patients with AD. There was significant difference in MoCA scores between HP, patients with aMCI, and patients with AD ( P = 0.04). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the aMCI and AD groups by MoCA was 0.88 and 0.95, respectively, compared to 0.43 and 0.67 by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The Georgian version of MoCA is a valid, reliable, and sensitive screening tool to detect aMCI and AD in Georgian-speaking population and is superior to 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".