MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890745493 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afy140.68

89Comparison Study of The Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA-CN) and The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen (Qmci-CN) in Post-Stroke Patients

2018· article· en· W2890745493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lingrong Yi, Yangfan Xu, Yuling Wang, Zhuoming Chen, Rónán Ó. Caoimh, D. William Molloy

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitive impairmentCognitionStroke (engine)AudiologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) can be divided into post-stroke cognitive impairment no dementia (PSCIND) and post-stroke dementia (PSD) according to the degree of the cognitive decline. Several cognitive screening instruments are available but there is no evidence to support which to use in clinical practice. Further, PSCI is often not detected. Given this, it is necessary to screen for PSCI. The most commonly used instruments to assess for PSCI are the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-CN) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-CN). The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci-CN) is a short cognitive screen that has yet to be validated in stroke. Methods: We recruited post-stroke patients from a rehabilitation unit in a large university hospital; 11 with PSD, 15 with PSCIND, 10 with normal cognition (NC). The Qmci-CN, MoCA-CN and MMSE-CN were administered by the trained rater, blind to the diagnosis. Results: In total, 36 patients were available; 61% (22/36) were female. The median age of patients was 63 (interquartile +/−13) years and the median years in education was 12 (+/−4). The median Qmci-CN screen score was 49/100 (+/−16), the median MMSE was 23/30(+/−7), and the median MoCA-CN score was 20/30(+/−7). In this sample the Qmci-CN was less accurate compared to the MMSE-CN and MoCA-CN in discriminating PSCIND from NC, area under the curve (AUC), 0.551 compared to 0.676 and 0.881, respectively. It has similar accuracy in discriminating PSD from NC, (AUC of 0.924 vs 0.979 and 1.0), and in discriminating PSCIND from PSD, (AUC of 0.894 vs 0.854 and 0.909, respectively). Conclusion: This study suggested that the Qmci-CN has comparable accuracy to the MMSE and MoCA-CN in discriminating PSD but was less accurate in separating NC from PSCIND compared to the MoCA-CN. Further study with a larger sample is needed to confirm these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207