A re‐examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.985
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005) is a cognitive screening tool that aims to differentiate healthy cognitive aging from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Several validation studies have been conducted on the MoCA, in a variety of clinical populations. Some studies have indicated that the originally suggested cutoff score of 26/30 leads to an inflated rate of false positives, particularly for those of older age and/or lower education. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the MoCA for differentiating healthy cognitive aging from possible MCI. METHODS: Of the 304 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. These studies were assessed across a range of cutoff scores to determine the respective sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive accuracies, likelihood ratios for positive and negative results, classification accuracies, and Youden indices. RESULTS: Meta-analysis revealed a cutoff score of 23/30 yielded the best diagnostic accuracy across a range of parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A MoCA cutoff score of 23, rather than the initially recommended score of 26, lowers the false positive rate and shows overall better diagnostic accuracy. We recommend the use of this cutoff score going forward. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
The record
- Venue
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Topic
- Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Baycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoYork University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Montreal Cognitive AssessmentCutoffCognitionFalse positive paradoxMeta-analysisYouden's J statisticMedicinePsychologyCognitive impairmentReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineStatisticsPsychiatryMathematics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes