Comparison of Montreal cognitive assessment scale and minimental state examination scale in screening HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders in Shenzhen, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the performance of Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) and minimental state examination scale (MMSE) in screening HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND). Methods A case-control study of 127 HIV+ and 60 HIV- individuals. All the subjects' cognitive functions were assessed using MoCA and MMSE separately. Results Mean MoCA score in cases was 26.28±2.43 compared to 27.33±1.30 in controls (P<0.01). Mean MMSE score in cases was 27.45±1.31 compared to 27.70±0.89 in controls (P=0.139). Using the MoCA screening revealed 43(33.9%) cases had HAND compared with 6 (6.7%) controls(χ2=16.01, P<0.001). Using MMSE, 6 (4.7%) cases and 1(1.7%) control had HAND (P=0.124). Conclusion The MoCA scale is more sensitive in deteting HAND than MMSE and is suited for the early cognitive screening of HIV patients in clinic. Key words: Mental statas schedule; Cogniotive dissonance
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".