MoCA Utility as a Quick Testing Tool for Neurocognitive Disorders in HIV Patients: Analysis of a Prospective Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy, asymptomatic and mild neurocognitive impairment are the main clinical manifiestations of HIV associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), compromising adherence to treatment, daily performance, quality of life, and even increasing the risk of mortality. We do not have validated screening tools for early detection of HAND applicable to the routine medical visit. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) is a simple questionnaire used in Alzheimer’s disease, but its utility as a screening tool for HAND remains controversial. We designed a prospective study to establish MoCA´s usefulness as a rapid and sensitive tool for the detection of HAND, compared with a gold-standard test (GST) that includes Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and a battery of assays that evaluate several neurological domains. Adult patients with HIV infection attending our institution were included. The MoCA test was performed by infectious diseases specialists, and the GST by neurologists. History of recent stroke, neurological disease, opportunistic central nervous system infection, major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or dependence on alcohol, were exclusion criteria. We analized demographic and clinical variables. Fifty HIV-infected patients were enrolled, 94% males, with a mean age of 45.6 years (range 20–75), and an average of 14.8 years of education (range 3–26). The mean CD4 cell count was 596 cells/ml (range 65–1130), and 70% of the patients had undetectable viral load (≤20 copies/mL) at the time of the evaluation. Compared with GST, MoCA had a sensibility (S) of 94.12% (CI 71.3–99.8), specificity (E) 78.79% (CI 61.09–91.02), positive predictive value (PPV) 69.57% (CI 47–86.79) and negative predictive value (NPV) 96.3 (CI 81–99.9). In contrast, the MMSE presented S 11.76% (CI 1.46–36.44), E 100% (CI 89.4–100), PPV 100% (CI 15.8–100) and NPV 68.75% (CI 53.7–81.3). Cohen’s kappa coefficient between MoCA and GST was 0.67 (95% CI 0.46–0.87), reflecting an adequate agreement. MoCA’s performance as a screening test was adequate compared with GST and far superior to MMSE for early detection of HAND. Although specifity could be optimized, MoCA test remains a valuable screening tool in the routine medical visit in our HIV population. All authors: No reported disclosures.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".