Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening mild cognitive impairment in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".