Cognitive Function and its Risk Factors Among Older US Adults Living at Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has not been administered to a representative national sample, precluding comparison of patient scores to the general population and for risk factor identification. METHODS: A validated survey-based adaptation of the MoCA (MoCA-SA) was administered to a probability sample of home-dwelling US adults aged 62 to 90, using the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (n=3129), yielding estimates of prevalence in the United States. The association between MoCA-SA scores and sociodemographic and health-related risk factors were determined. RESULTS: MoCA-SA scores decreased with age, and there were substantial differences among sex, education, and race/ethnicity groups. Poor physical health, functional status, and depression were also associated with lower cognitive performance; current health behaviors were not. Using the recommended MoCA cut-point score for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MoCA score <26; MoCA-SA score <17), 72% (95% confidence interval, 69% to 74%) of older US adults would be classified as having some degree of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide an important national estimate for interpreting MoCA scores from individual patients, and establish wide variability in cognition among older home-dwelling US adults. Care should be taken in applying previously-established MoCA cut-points to the general population, especially when evaluating individuals from educationally and ethnically diverse groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".