Montreal cognitive assessment reflects cognitive reserve
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is known to have discriminative power for patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Recently Cognitive Reserve (CR) has been introduced as a factor that compensates cognitive decline. We aimed to assess whether the MoCA reflects CR. Furthermore, we assessed whether there were any differences in the efficacy between the MoCA and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in reflecting CR. METHODS: MoCA, MMSE, and the Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire (CRIq) were administered to 221 healthy participants. Normative data and associated factors of the MoCA were identified. Correlation and regression analyses of the MoCA, MMSE and CRIq scores were performed, and the MoCA score was compared with the MMSE score to evaluate the degree to which the MoCA reflected CR. RESULTS: The MoCA reflected total CRIq score (CRI; B = 0.076, P < 0.001), CRI-Education (B = 0.066, P < 0.001), and CRI-Working activity (B = 0.025, P = 0.042), while MMSE reflected total CRI (B = 0.044, P < 0.001) and CRI-Education (B = 0.049, P < 0.001) only. The MoCA differed from the MMSE in the reflection of total CRI (Z = 2.30). CONCLUSION: In this study, we show that the MoCA score reflects CR more sensitively than the MMSE score. Therefore, we suggest that MoCA can be used to assess CR and early cognitive decline.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it