Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Index Scores: a Comparison with the Cognitive Domain Scores of the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery (SNSB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A new approach was proposed to score the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) index scores for 6 cognitive domains: orientation (OIS), attention (AIS), language (LIS), visuospatial function (VIS), memory (MIS), and executive function (EIS). This study investigated whether the MoCA index scores represent the functions of each cognitive domain by examining the correlations with the corresponding cognitive domain scores derived from conventional neuropsychological tests included in the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery, 2nd Edition (SNSB-II). METHODS: The participants were 104 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), 74 vascular mild cognitive impairment (VaMCI), 73 dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT), and 41 vascular dementia (VaD) patients. All participants were administered the Korean-MoCA and SNSB-II. RESULTS: Like the MoCA total score, the MoCA-OIS, MoCA-VIS, and MoCA-MIS showed differences between aMCI and AD groups and between VaMCI and VaD groups. The MoCA-AIS, MoCA-LIS, and MoCA-EIS showed significant differences between VaMCI and VaD groups, but no difference between aMCI and DAT groups. In the aMCI and VaMCI groups, all index scores of the MoCA showed significant correlations with the corresponding cognitive domain scores of the SNSB-II. Except for MoCA-MIS, the MoCA-AIS, MoCA-LIS, MoCA-VIS, and MoCA-EIS also showed significant correlations with the corresponding domain scores of the SNSB-II in the DAT and VaD groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that all MoCA index scores, except for MoCA-MIS, which does not reflect the severity of memory impairment in dementia patients, provide highly valid information on the function of each cognitive domain in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".