MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897288945 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000006506

Early MoCA predicts long-term cognitive and functional outcome and mortality after stroke

2018· article· en· W2897288945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vera Zietemann, Marios K. Georgakis, Thibaut Dondaine, Claudia Müller, Anne‐Marie Mendyk, Anna Kopczak, Hilde Hénon, Stéphanie Bombois, Frank A. Wollenweber, Régis Bordet, Martin Dichgans

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentHazard ratioModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Confidence intervalMedicineDementiaNeuropsychologyCognitionClinical Dementia RatingInternal medicineOdds ratioGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> To examine whether the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) administered within 7 days after stroke predicts long-term cognitive impairment, functional impairment, and mortality. <h3>Methods</h3> MoCA was administered to 274 patients from 2 prospective hospital-based cohort studies in Germany (n = 125) and France (n = 149). Cognitive and functional outcomes were assessed at 6, 12, and 36 months after stroke by comprehensive neuropsychological testing, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) and analyzed with generalized estimating equations. All-cause mortality was investigated by Cox proportional hazard models. Analyses were adjusted for demographic variables, education, vascular risk factors, premorbid cognitive status, and NIH Stroke Scale scores. The additive predictive value of MoCA was examined with receiver operating characteristic curves. <h3>Results</h3> In pooled analyses, a baseline MoCA score &lt;26 was associated with cognitive impairment, defined by neuropsychological testing (odds ratio [OR] 5.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.75–10.22) and by CDR score ≥0.5 (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.53–4.18); functional impairment, defined by mRS score &gt;2 (OR 5.03, 95% CI 2.20–11.51) and by IADL score &lt;8 (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.40–4.38); and mortality (hazard ratio 7.24, 95% CI 1.99–26.35) across the 3-year follow-up. Patients with MoCA score &lt;26 performed worse across all prespecified cognitive domains (executive function/attention, memory, language, visuospatial ability). MoCA increased the area under the curve for predicting cognitive impairment (neuropsychological testing 0.81 vs 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.01) and functional impairment (mRS score &gt;2, 0.88 vs 0.84, <i>p</i> = 0.047). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Early cognitive testing by MoCA predicts long-term cognitive outcome, functional outcome, and mortality after stroke. Our results support routine use of the MoCA in stroke patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations152
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207