Determining a Short Form Montreal Cognitive Assessment (s-MoCA) Czech Version: Validity in Mild Cognitive Impairment Parkinson’s Disease and Cross-Cultural Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is one of the most common screening instruments for mild cognitive impairment. However, the standard MoCA is approximately two times longer to administer than the Mini-Mental State Examination. A total of 699 Czech and 175 American participants received the standard MoCA Czech and English versions and in the clinical part, a sample of 102 nondemented patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). We created a validated Czech short version (s-MoCA-CZ) from the original using item response theory. As expected, s-MoCA-CZ scores were highly correlated with the standard version (Pearson r = .94, p < .001). s-MoCA-CZ also had 80% classification accuracy in the differentiation of PD mild cognitive impairment from PD without impairment. The s-MoCA-CZ, a brief screening tool, is shorter to administer than the standard MoCA. It provides high-classification accuracy for PD mild cognitive impairment and is equivalent to that of the standard MoCA-CZ.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".