Psychometric Properties of the Persian Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a cognitive screening test widely used in clinical practice and suited for the detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The aims were to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian MoCA as a screening test for mild cognitive dysfunction in Iranian older adults and to assess its accuracy as a screening test for MCI and mild Alzheimer disease (AD). METHOD: One hundred twenty elderly with a mean age of 73.52 ± 7.46 years participated in this study. Twenty-one subjects had mild AD (MMSE score ≤21), 40 had MCI, and 59 were cognitively healthy controls. All the participants were administered the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) to evaluate their general cognitive status. Also, a battery of comprehensive neuropsychological assessments was administered. RESULTS: The mean score on the Persian version of the MoCA and the MMSE were 19.32 and 25.62 for MCI and 13.71 and 22.14 for AD patients, respectively. Using an optimal cutoff score of 22 the MoCA test detected 86% of MCI subjects, whereas the MMSE with a cutoff score of 26 detected 72% of MCI subjects. In AD patients with a cutoff score of 20, the MoCA had a sensitivity of 94% whereas the MMSE detected 61%. The specificity of the MoCA was 70% and 90% for MCI and AD, respectively. DISCUSSION: The results of this study show that the Persian version of the MoCA is a reliable screening tool for detection of MCI and early stage AD. The MoCA is more sensitive than the MMSE in screening for cognitive impairment, proving it to be superior to MMSE in detecting MCI and mild AD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".