A re‐examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.051 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".