The Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Veteran Postacute Care: Implications of Cut Scores
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is often used for cognitive screening across health care settings, especially in rehabilitation centers, where assessment and treatment of cognitive function is considered key for successful multidisciplinary treatment. Although the original MoCA validation study suggested a cut score of <26 to identify cognitive impairment, recent studies have suggested that lower cut scores should be applied. OBJECTIVES: To examine the percentage of positive screens for cognitive impairment using the MoCA in a veteran postacute care (PAC) rehabilitation setting and to identify the most accurate MoCA cut score based on criterion neuropsychological measures. METHODS: We obtained data from 81 veterans with diverse medical diagnoses who had completed the MoCA during their admission to a PAC unit. A convenience subsample of 50 veterans had also completed four criterion neuropsychological measures. RESULTS: Depending on the cut score used, the percentage of individuals classified as impaired based on MoCA performance varied widely, ranging from 6.2% to 92.6%. When predicting performance using a more comprehensive battery of criterion neuropsychological tests, we identified <22 as the most accurate MoCA cut score to identify a clinically relevant level of impairment and <24 to identify milder cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a MoCA cut score of <26 carries a risk of misdiagnosis of cognitive impairment, and scores in the range of <22 to <24 are more reliable for identifying cognitive impairment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it