MoCA vs. MMSE of Fibromyalgia Patients: The Possible Role of Dual-Task Tests in Detecting Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibromyalgia is a syndrome that is characterized by widespread pain; fatigue; stiffness; reduced physical fitness; sleep disturbances; psychological symptoms, such as anxiety and depression; and deficits in cognitive functions, such as attention, executive function, and verbal memory deficits. It is important to analyze the potentially different performance on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test in patients with fibromyalgia as well as examine the relationship of that performance with physical and cognitive performance. A total of 36 women with fibromyalgia participated in the study. Participants completed the MoCA test, the MMSE, and the TUG physical fitness test under dual-task conditions. The results obtained on cognitive tests were 28.19 (1.74) on the MMSE and 25.17 (2.79) on the MoCA. The participants' performance on cognitive tests was significantly related to the results of the TUG dual-task test. In this way, cognitive performance on a dual-task test can be used to support the diagnosis of cognitive impairment in patients with fibromyalgia. The MoCA test may be a more sensitive cognitive screening tool than the MMSE for patients with fibromyalgia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".