MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899120825 · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2018.09.003

Optimal cutoffs for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment vary by race and ethnicity

2018· article· en· W2899120825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sadaf Arefi Milani, Michael Marsiske, Linda B. Cottler, Xinguang Chen, Catherine W. Striley

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDementiaEthnic groupGerontologyMedicineRace (biology)DemographyCognitive impairmentCutoffCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicinePsychiatryDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), scored from 0 to 30, is used as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The current cutoff (26) may not be optimal among minorities. METHODS: Data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set March 2018 data freeze was used to calculate optimal cutoffs for detection of MCI and dementia by race/ethnic group and education. RESULTS: Of the 3895 individuals included, 80.7% were non-Hispanic White, 15.0% were non-Hispanic Black, and 4.2% were Hispanic. Optimal cutoffs for detection of MCI were 25 among non-Hispanic Whites, 24 among Hispanics, and 23 among non-Hispanic Blacks. Optimal cutoffs for detection of dementia were 19 among non-Hispanic Whites and 16 for both non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics. Lower educational attainment produced lower optimal cutoffs. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest cutoffs may need to be stratified by race/ethnicity and education to ensure detecting MCI from normal and MCI from dementia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

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

Citations256
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease MonitoringSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207