A comparison of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and standard cognitive measures in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and Knight Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) could be described as a “sampling” of more comprehensive cognitive measures. We investigated the utility of the MoCA in predicting disease progression in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) sample in comparison to standard comprehensive cognitive measures collected in the NACC Uniform Dataset 3 (UDS 3). In addition, using the imaging biomarker‐rich cohorts at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (ADRC), we compared the sensitivity of the MoCA and UDS 3 measures to APOE 4 status, amyloid PET, tau PET, and structural MRI. Method Analysis One: In cognitively normal older adults from the NACC cohort (n=6,273, 2.3 +/‐ 0.9 years follow‐up), survival and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses compared the MoCA and UDS 3 measures on their ability to classify disease progression, defined as change in Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) status from 0 to >0. Analysis Two: In Knight ADRC participants (n = 445), regression models compared the sensitivity of the MoCA and standard cognitive measures to AD biomarkers in all participants and separately in CDR 0s. Result Disease progression analyses in the NACC sample resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) estimate for the MoCA of 0.69 for the total score and 0.55‐0.73 for domain scores. For the UDS 3 measures, AUCs ranged from 0.57‐0.73. A cognitive composite similar to a “PACC” yielded an AUC of 0.71. Sensitivity to AD biomarkers including amyloid PET, tau PET, cortical thickness, and APOE 4 status was similar for both the MoCA and UDS 3 measures (all p’s < 0.001). Analyses of CDR 0 participants produced small but significant relationships only with tau PET and cortical thickness (p’s 0.01 – 0.02) for both MoCA and UDS 3 tests. Conclusion Neither the MoCA nor UDS 3 cognitive measures demonstrated adequate classification of disease progression. Correlations with biomarkers suggests that the MoCA is capable of tracking pathological indicators of AD in individuals with symptomatic disease. However, in cognitively normal participants, both the MoCA and UDS 3 measures were weakly correlated with indicators of neurodegeneration. More sensitive measures or improved assessment methodology is required to reliably detect AD pathology prior to clinical diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".