Montreal cognitive assessment for evaluating cognitive impairment in Huntington’s disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review evidence of the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for evaluating the presence of cognitive impairment in patients with Huntington's disease (HD) and to outline the quality and quantity of research evidence available about the use of the MoCA in this population. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review, searching four databases from inception until April 2020. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria: two case-control studies comparing the MoCA to a battery of tests, three studies comparing MoCA to Mini-Mental State Examination, two studies estimating the prevalence of cognitive impairment in individuals with HD and 19 studies or clinical trials in which the MoCA was used as an instrument for the cognitive assessment of participants with HD. We found no cross-sectional studies in which participants received the index test (MoCA) and a reference standard diagnostic assessment composed of an extensive neuropsychological battery. The publication period ranged from 2010 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HD, the MoCA provides information about disturbances in general cognitive function. Even if the MoCA demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity when used at the recommended threshold score of 26, further cross-sectional studies are required to examine the optimum cutoff score for detecting cognitive impairments in patients with HD. Moreover, more studies are necessary to determine whether the MoCA adequately assesses cognitive status in individuals with HD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| 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".