Development of a short-form Swedish version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (s-MoCA-SWE): protocol for a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Short forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) have allowed quick cognitive screening. However, none of the available short forms has been created or validated in a Swedish sample of patients with stroke.The aim is to develop a short-form Swedish version of the MoCA (s-MoCA-SWE) in a sample of patients with acute and subacute stroke. The specific objectives are: (1) to identify a subgroup of MoCA items that have the potential to form the s-MoCA-SWE; (2) to determine the optimal cut-off value of s-MoCA-SWE for predicting cognitive impairment and (3) and to compare the psychometric properties of s-MoCA-SWE with those of previously developed MoCA short forms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a statistical analysis protocol for a cross-sectional study. The study sample will comprise patients from Väststroke, a local stroke registry from Gothenburg, Sweden and Efficacy oF Fluoxetine-a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS), a randomised controlled trial in Sweden. The s-MoCA-SWE will be developed by using exploratory factor analysis and the boosted regression tree algorithm. The cut-off value of s-MoCA-SWE for impaired cognition will be determined based on binary logistic regression analysis. The psychometric properties of s-MoCA-SWE will be compared with those of other MoCA short forms by using cross-tabulation and area under the receiving operating characteristic curve analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Väststroke study has received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg (346-16) and the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (amendment 2019-04299). The handling of data generated within the framework of quality registers does not require written informed consent from patients. The EFFECTS study has received ethical approval from the Stockholm Ethics Committee (2013/1265-31/2 on 30 September 2013). All participants provided written consent. Results will be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and communicated to clinical practitioners in local meetings and seminars.
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 | 0.044 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.016 |
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".