MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995590269

Use of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a Rural Outreach Program for Military Veterans.

2019· article· en· W2995590269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle M. Hilgeman, Eugenia M. Boozer, Aisling Snow, Rebecca S. Allen, Lori L. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Rural HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentOutreachRural communityGerontologyMedicineRural areaMultivariate analysisPsychologyDemographyCognitionCognitive impairmentPsychiatryPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a free, easily accessible screener ideal for rural areas where resources are limited. We examined administration and scoring by Veteran Community Outreach Health Workers (VCOHWs); compared positive screening rates using two cutoff scores; and examined predictors of education-adjusted scores in N = 168 rural military Veterans from the Alabama Veteran Rural Health Initiative. Accuracy of administration (95 percent) and scoring (68 percent) was calculated and recommendations are offered. Higher than expected rates of positive screens were observed (40 percent using 24/30 cutoff) in this relatively young (M = 55 years) community-dwelling sample. Age, education, and race but not subjective health predicted differences in domain and total education-adjusted scores on multivariate and univariate tests. This study advances social science research in rural communities by being the first to: (1) examine MoCA scores in a rural, Deep South U.S. sample; and (2) report fidelity administration data for VCOHWs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→