MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3182197052 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254055

Converting from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to the Mini-Mental State Examination-2

2021· article· en· W3182197052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hwabeen Yang, Daehyuk Yim, Moon Ho Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEquatingIntraclass correlationReliability (semiconductor)CognitionSmoothingMini–Mental State ExaminationRaw scorePsychologyStatisticsCognitive impairmentComputer scienceMathematicsPsychometricsPsychiatryRaw data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination-2 (MMSE-2) are useful psychometric tests for cognitive screening. Many clinicians want to predict the MMSE-2 score based on the MoCA score. To facilitate the transition from the MoCA to the MMSE-2, this study developed a conversion method. METHODS: This study retrospectively examined the relationship between the MoCA and MMSE-2. Overall, 303 participants were evaluated. We produced a conversion table using the equipercentile equating method with log-linear smoothing. Then, we evaluated the reliability and accuracy of this algorithm to convert the MoCA to the MMSE-2. RESULTS: MoCA scores were converted to MMSE-2 scores according to a conversion table that achieved a reliability of 0.961 (intraclass correlation). The accuracy of this algorithm was 84.5% within 3 points difference from the raw score. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a reliable and easy conversion algorithm for transforming MoCA scores into converted MMSE-2 scores. This method will greatly enhance the utility of existing cognitive data in clinical and research settings.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→