Reliability and validity of Montreal cognitive assessment recension of Chinese version in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of Montreal cognitive assessment recension of Chinese version in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment.Methods One hundred and ninety-six retirements from nine Army recuperation place in Xi'an were tested by MoCA and MoCA recension simultaneously,randomly and integrally.Thirty retirements were selected randomly and tested again one month later.The reliability and validity of MoCA recension of Chinese version in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment was evaluated.Results MoCA recension of Chinese version was accorded with the culture background and living habits,replenishing the deficiency of MoCA in reading and language comprehensions,and writing.MoCA recension,enjoying good internal consistency,had 0.862 of Cronbach,s alpha.The related coefficient of MoCA and MoCA recension was 0.878 (P=000).Conclusion MoCA recension of Chinese version has favorable reliability and validity,which is more suitable for clinically evaluating and diagnosing Chinese elderly people with mild cognitive impairment. Key words: Mild cognitive impairment; Elderly people; Revise; Montreal cognitive assessment recension; Validity; Reliability
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".