MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914478706 · doi:10.1159/000495562

Optimal Cutoff Scores for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Brazilian Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment among the Elderly

2019· article· en· W2914478706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tiago Coimbra Costa Pinto, Marília Suzi Pereira dos Santos, Leonardo Machado, Tatiana M. Bulgacov, A. L. Rodrigues, Gabriela A. Silva, María Lúcia Gurgel da Costa, Rosana Christine Cavalcanti Ximenes, Éverton Botelho Sougey

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitive impairmentCognitionCognitive Assessment SystemPsychologyGerontologyCutoffClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To propose cutoff scores for the Brazilian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-BR) stratified by education in order to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the elderly. METHOD: A transversal study in health centers was performed on 159 elderly people with 4-12 years of education and 70 of their peers with over 12 years of schooling. The MoCA-BR cutoff scores for screening cognitive impairment were determined based on an ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: The ROC curve analysis indicated that cutoff scores under 20 were good for screening elderly people with cognitive impairment with more than 12 years of education, and scores under 21 were good for screening those with 4-12 years of education. CONCLUSIONS: MoCA-BR scores under 21 points (after adding 1 point to the elderly with ≤12 years of education) indicate a need to continue the diagnostic investigation with regular follow-ups.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders ExtraSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207