Early detection of cognitive impairments with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with uncomplicated and complicated mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Montreal Cognitive Assessement (MoCA) is a brief and standardized cognitive screening tool that has been used with several clinical populations. The aim of this study was to screen the early cognitive status of patients following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with the MoCA. METHODS: The MoCA was administered within the first 2 weeks post-injury to 42 patients with uncomplicated mTBI, 92 patients with complicated mTBI and 50 healthy controls. RESULTS: Patients with complicated mTBI had a significantly lower performance (more impairments) on the total score of the MoCA than both the group with uncomplicated mTBI and the control group. Also, the group with uncomplicated mTBI had a significantly lower performance than controls. Moreover, age, education and TBI severity had a significant effect on the MoCA total score where younger, more educated and patients with less severe (higher GCS score) mTBI performed significantly better. CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA may be clinically useful to acutely screen cognition following mTBI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".