Validation of the Russian Version of the MoCA Test as a Cognitive Screening Instrument in Cognitively Asymptomatic Older Individuals and Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in older people is a common syndrome that should be recognized, since interventions such as physical exercise and cognitive training may be useful in maintaining cognitive function and planning for the future is useful. The MoCA test is a useful screening instrument for MCI, but the Russian version of this test has not yet been validated in this condition. The aim of the present study was to validate the Russian version of the MoCA test. Methods: The study population included 160 residents of Israel aged 65 years and older with Russian as their mother tongue, 80 with a clinical diagnosis of MCI, and 80 cognitively asymptomatic controls (AC). All participants underwent cognitive evaluation the Russian version of the MoCA test (MoCA-Ru), and a computerized cognitive assessment battery (Neurotrax) validated for MCI. Results: The mean age of the study population was 78±6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women. The MoCA-Ru score was higher in the AC group than in those with MCI (24.3±3.74 vs. 20.2±3.07, P<0.0001). Based on ROC analysis MoCA-Ru was found to have good discriminating capacity for differentiating participants with MCI from asymptomatic controls at a cutoff value of 25. Conclusions: We found the Russian language version of the MoCA test to be useful as a screening tool for MCI. However, there is a need for further adaptation and validation of the current Russian version of the MoCA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".