MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107352485 · doi:10.1111/jan.14638

Conversion between Mini‐Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores in older adults undergoing selective surgery using Rasch analysis

2020· article· en· W3107352485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoying Chen, Huangliang Wen, Jinni Wang, Yayan Yi, Jialan Wu, Xiaoyan Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRasch modelIntraclass correlationCognitive impairmentMedicineCognitionPhysical therapyMini–Mental State ExaminationPsychometricsPsychiatryStatisticsClinical psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To develop and validate a conversion table between the MMSE and the MoCA using Rasch analysis in older adults undergoing selective surgery and examine its diagnostic accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Older patients [N = 129; age 66.0 (4.6) years, education 7.7 (3.5) years] undergoing elective surgery were recruited from December 2017 to June 2018. All participants completed the MMSE and MoCA and 113 of them completed a battery of neuropsychological tests. Common person linking based on Rasch analysis was performed to develop the conversion table. The conversions were validated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), score differences between actual and converted scores, and root mean squared error of the difference (RMSE). The diagnostic accuracy of the conversions for detecting cognitive impairment was also tested. RESULTS: The MoCA [person measure: 1.3 (1.1) logits] was better targeted to the patients than the MMSE [person measure: 3.2 (1.3) logits]. Conversion from MoCA to MMSE scores (ICC 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.88; RMSE 1.36) was more precise than conversion from MMSE to MoCA (ICC 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.87; RMSE 2.56). Conversion from MoCA to MMSE demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment than the actual MMSE, whereas conversion from MMSE to MoCA exhibited the opposite pattern. CONCLUSION: Conversion from MoCA to MMSE was more precise and had better diagnostic accuracy in detecting pre-operative cognitive impairment in older patients undergoing selective surgery than conversion from MMSE into MoCA. IMPACT: The finding is useful for interpreting, comparing, and integrating cognitive measurements in surgical settings and clinical research. Statistically sound conversion between MoCA and MMSE based on Rasch analysis is now possible for surgical setting and clinical research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207