Differential Relationships Between the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Informant-Rated Cognitive Decline Among Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We compared the concurrent validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with other cognitive screening instruments among Mexican Americans (MA) and non-Hispanic whites (NHW). Methods: In a community-based study in Nueces county, Texas (5/2/18-2/26/20), participants 65+ with MoCA ≤25 completed the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol. Regressions examined associations between MoCA and: 1) Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE); 2) abbreviated Community Screening Interview for Dementia (CSI-D); 3) Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Results: MA (n = 229) and NHW (n = 81) differed by education but not age or sex. MoCA and cognitive performance associations (MMSE, CSI-D-Respondent) did not differ between MA and NHW (p’s > .16). MoCA and informant rating associations (IQCODE, CSI-D-Informant) were stronger in NHW than MA (NHW R 2 = 0.39 and 0.38, respectively; MA R 2 = 0.30 and 0.28, respectively). Discussion: Our findings suggest non-equivalence across cognitive screening instruments among MAs and NHWs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".