MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening mild cognitive impairment in elderly patients

2009· article· en· W3028943892 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haiyuan Li, Yanping Wang, Shaoqing Yang, Shengqiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Neuromedicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentCognitionNeuropsychologyMedicineDementiaMini–Mental State ExaminationAudiologyElderly peoplePsychologyGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To assess the value of Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA)in screening mild cognitive impairment(MCI)in elderly patients.Methods Thirty-two elderly patients with MCI and 50 healthy elderly subjects were examined with neuropsychological tests using Mini-mental State Examination(MMSE)and the MoCA. Results With a cut-off score of 26,the MoCA had a sensitivity of 96.87%and specificity of 76%for detecting MCI,and the sensitivity and specificity of MMSE were 56.25%and 96%,respectively.For the MoCA sub-items,the elderly patients with MCI had significantly lower scores than the healthy elderly in all the cognitive function measures (P<0.05)except for abstraction and fixed orientation.In MMSE sub-items,significant differgnces were found between the two groups in only calculation/attention and delayed recall(P<0.05).Conclusions The MoCA is a highiy sensitive scale for screening MCI in elderly patients,which allows comprehensive assessment of the cognitive function of MCI patients and is applicable in detecting MCI in patients with normal MMSE results. Key words: Mild cognitive impairment; Montreal cognitive assessment

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of NeuromedicineSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207