T‐MoCA: A valid phone screen for cognitive impairment in diverse community samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to validate telephone versions of widely used general cognitive measures, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA), for remote assessments. METHODS: In the Einstein Aging Study, a diverse community cohort (n = 428; mean age = 78.1; 66% female; 54% non-White), equivalence testing was used to examine concordance between the T-MoCA and the corresponding in-person MoCA assessment. Receiver operating characteristic analyses examined the diagnostic ability to discriminate between mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition. Conversion methods from T-MoCA to the MoCA are presented. RESULTS: Education, race/ethnicity, gender, age, self-reported cognitive concerns, and telephone administration difficulties were associated with both modes of administration; however, when examining the difference between modalities, these factors were not significant. Sensitivity and specificity for the T-MoCA (using Youden's index optimal cut) were 72% and 59%, respectively. DISCUSSION: The T-MoCA demonstrated sufficient psychometric properties to be useful for screening of MCI, especially when clinic visits are not feasible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".