Application of MoCA and MMSE in screening for cognitive impairment in acute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the applicability of the Beijing Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for cognitive impairment in patients with acute ischemic stroke for 2-3 weeks. Methods MoCA and MMSE were conducted in 201 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of stroke. With MoCA<23 and MMSE<26 as the cut off value, we assessed the clinic effect of the MoCA and MMSE and explored the correlation between two instruments. Results The average scores of MoCA and MMSE scale were (20.5±4.3) and (25.4±3.5) points. The prevalence of cognitive impairment evaluated with MoCA and MMSE were 57.2% and 43.3%, respectively.MoCA showed significant correlation with MMSE score (Pearson's correlation coefficient=0.833, P<0.001), and an agreement with Kappa values of 0.532 (P<0.01) in screening for cognitive impairment. Conclusions The prevalence of cognitive impairment assessed with MoCA is higher than that of with MMSE when using MoCA<23 and MMSE<26 as the cut off values. Both instruments show a good agreement for screening cognitive impairment in acute ischemic stroke within 2 to 3 weeks following the disease onset. Key words: Acute ischemic stroke; Cognitive impairment; Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".