El Montreal Cognitive Assessment (moca) comoscreening cognitivo en pacientes con trastorno por consumo de alcohol: Un estudio Delphi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl deterioro cognitivo en personas con tras-torno por uso de alcohol puede pasar desaper-cibido si no se utilizan medidas objetivas paraevaluarlo. Se realizo un estudio Delphi modi-ficado para conocer la opinion de un panel de40 expertos sobre la adecuacion del MontrealCognitive Assessment. La mayoria de los pro-fesionales consultados utilizan el MinimentalState Examination y el Test del Reloj, instru-mentos que se han mostrado poco sensibles aldeterioro cognitivo en esta poblacion. La ma-yoria de los consultados consideran el MoCAadecuado y suficientemente exhaustivo, siem-pre y cuando no sustituya a una exploracionneuropsicologica completa posterior EnglishCognitive impairment might go undetec-ted in people with alcohol use disorder ifnot measured with objective instruments.We conducted a modified Delphi study togather the opinions of a panel of 40 expertsfrom various disciplines about the suitabi-lity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA). The screening instrument mostwidely used by respondents was the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), despitethe fact that it shows low sensitivity in thispopulation. Most of the respondents con-sidered the MoCA to be suitable and suffi-ciently exhaustive, provided it does notreplace a subsequent and full neuropsycho-logical examination.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".