MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896841832 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acy061.158

C - 05Use of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a Rural Outreach Program for Military Veterans

2018· article· en· W2896841832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle M. Hilgeman, Eugenia M. Boozer, L. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentOutreachCognitive impairmentGerontologyPsychologyCognitionMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a free, easily accessible screener ideal for use in rural areas where resources are limited. We examined administration/scoring by non-clinical, trained staff; compared positive screening rates using two cut-off scores; and examined predictors of education-adjusted scores in N = 168 rural military Veterans from the Alabama Veteran Rural Health Initiative (VCOHW). Method: Participants recruited through the VCOHW and completed baseline assessment which included the MoCA. Assessments were administered by non-clinical VA employees trained on MoCA administration and scoring by experienced clinicians. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 85 with a mean age of 55.6 years; 91.3% were men and 7.1% were women. Self-identified race/ethnicity revealed: 58.6% White/Caucasian, 40.9% Black/African American, 1% Hispanic (n = 2), and 0.5% Asian (n = 1). 53% reported formal education past high school. Baseline measures were completed through self-report or interview for illness burden, occupational and functional disability, psychiatric symptoms, stress and trauma checklists, and healthcare utilization. General demographics, military history, and legal history were also included. Results: Accuracy of administration (95%) and scoring (68%) was calculated on audited MoCAs. Higher than expected rates of positive screens were observed (40% using 24/30 cutoff) in this relatively young (M = 55 years) community-dwelling sample. Correlation analyses revealed age was negatively correlated with overall performance (−.48, p < .001). Age was also negatively correlated with five of six cognitive domains: visuospatial/executive abilities, naming, delayed recall, orientation, and attention. Abstract thinking was not significantly related to age. An ANOVA predicting the total education-adjusted MoCA score from subjective health, race, age, and education revealed a significant model [F (4, 158) = 17.48, p < .0001], such that age (t = −7.63, p < .001), race (t = −2.51, p = .01), and education (t = 3.25, p = .001) significantly predicted MoCA scores. Subjective health was not significant. Conclusions: This study advances rural practice by being the first to: 1) examine MoCA scores in a rural, Deep South U.S. sample; and 2) report fidelity administration data for non-expert outreach staff.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.466 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207