Concurrent validity of the short version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine the concurrent validity of 2 Chinese versions of the short version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with stroke, i.e., MoCA 5-minute protocol and National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) 5-minute Protocol. A total of 54 patients and 27 healthy controls were enrolled in this study. In this study, the Neurobehavioural Cognitive Status Examination (NCSE) was used as an external criterion of cognitive impairment. We found that the 5-min protocol did not differ from the MoCA in differentiating patients with cognitive impairments from those without (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC, of 0.948 for the MoCA 5-min protocol v.s. 0.984 for MoCA, P = 0.097). These three assessments demonstrated equal performance in differentiating patients with stroke from controls. The Chinese version of the MoCA 5-min protocol can be used as a valid screening for patients with stroke.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".