MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157883333 · doi:10.1111/jgs.17209

Bilingualism, assessment language, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Mexican Americans

2021· article· en· W3157883333 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily M. Briceño, Roshanak Mehdipanah, Xavier F. Gonzales, Steven G. Heeringa, Deborah A. Levine, Kenneth M. Langa, Daniel A. Zahs, Nelda Garcia, Ruth Longoria, Lewis B. Morgenstern

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionMedicineGerontologyMultilingualismPsychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Assessment of cognition in linguistically diverse aging populations is a growing need. Bilingualism may complicate cognitive measurement precision, and bilingualism may vary across Hispanic/Latinx sub-populations. We examined the association among bilingualism, assessment language, and cognitive screening performance in a primarily non-immigrant Mexican American community. DESIGN: Prospective, community-based cohort study: The Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi (BASIC)-Cognitive study. SETTING: Nueces County, Texas. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling Mexican Americans age 65+, recruited door-to-door using a two-stage area probability sampling procedure. MEASUREMENTS: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); self-reported bilingualism scale. Participants were classified as monolingual, Spanish dominant bilingual, English dominant bilingual, or balanced bilingual based upon bilingualism scale responses. Linear regressions examined relationships among bilingualism, demographics, cognitive assessment language, and MoCA scores. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 547 Mexican American participants (60% female). Fifty-eight percent were classified as balanced bilingual, the majority (88.6%) of whom selected assessment in English. Balanced bilinguals that completed the MoCA in English performed better than balanced bilinguals that completed the MoCA in Spanish (b = -4.0, p < 0.05). Among balanced bilinguals that took the MoCA in Spanish, education outside of the United States was associated with better performance (b = 4.4, p < 0.001). Adjusting for demographics and education, we found no association between the degree of bilingualism and MoCA performance (p's > 0.10). CONCLUSION: Bilingualism is important to consider in cognitive aging studies in linguistically diverse communities. Future research should examine whether cognitive test language selection affects cognitive measurement precision in balanced bilinguals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207