Differences in performance on English and Hebrew versions of the MoCA in Parkinson's patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), an instrument widely used for cognitive screening in Parkinson's disease (PD), is validated in Hebrew and English. However, it remains unknown whether the scores are comparable. The MoCA was analyzed in 483 Ashkenazi Jewish PD patients in Tel-Aviv and New York who had MoCA ≥21. Each section of the MoCA was compared between English and Hebrew. Linear regression models were used to test the association between MoCA performance and language. Total MoCA scores were lower in Hebrew than in English (25.4 versus 26.1; P = 0.007), even after adjustment for age, sex, PD duration, genotype, levodopa equivalent dose, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III), and Geriatric Depression Scale score in a linear model (P < 0.001). However, when language sections were removed from the total, scores were similar between the languages (Hebrew 23.7 versus English 23.4, P = 0.111). The language section of the MoCA may be more difficult in Hebrew. The comparability of MoCA in different languages requires further evaluation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".