The Association between the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Functional Activity Questionnaire in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of global cognitive function assessed via the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and deficiencies in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) on the Functional Activity Questionnaire (FAQ) in hypertensive older adults in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). METHODS: In cross-sectional analysis, 9,296 SPRINT participants completed the MoCA at baseline. The FAQ was obtained from 2,705 informants for SPRINT participants scoring <21 or <22 on the MoCA, depending on education. FAQ severity ranged from no dysfunction (Score = 0) to moderate/severe dysfunction (Score = 5+). RESULTS: Participants who triggered FAQ administration were older, less educated, and more likely to be Black or Hispanic (p < 0.001). Sixty-one percent (n = 1,661) of participants' informants reported no functional difficulties in IADLs. An informant report, however, of any difficulty on the FAQ was associated with lower MoCA scores after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education (p < 0.05). Partial proportional odds regression indicates that participants scoring lower on the MoCA (in the 10th to <25th, fifth to <10th, and <fifth percentiles) had higher adjusted odds of their informant indicating dysfunction on the FAQ, relative to participants scoring at or above the 25th percentile on the MoCA (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While lower global cognitive function was strongly associated with IADL deficits on FAQ, informants indicated no functional difficulties for the majority of SPRINT participants, despite low MoCA scores. These findings can help with designing future studies which aim to detect mild cognitive impairment and/or dementia in large, community-dwelling populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".