The Screening Accuracy of a Visually Based Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool for Older Adult Hearing Aid Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This research aims to validate a modified visually based Montreal Cognitive Assessment for hearing-aid users (MoCA-HA). This population should be the target of cognitive screening due to high risk of developing dementia. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: The participants were recruited from referral hearing-aid center and memory clinic in central London, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANT: 75 hearing-aid users were recruited. Of these, thirty were cognitively intact controls with hearing impairment (NC-HI); thirty had mild cognitive impairment with hearing impairment (MCI-HI); fifteen had dementia with hearing impairment (D-HI). MEASUREMENTS: The baseline characteristics and analysis of the MoCA-HA for the NC-HI were recorded. The MoCA-HA performance of the MCI-HI cohort and D-HI cohort were also studied. RESULTS: The cutpoint of <26 yields 93.3% sensitivity with 80% specificity in distinguishing MCI-HI from NC-HI. The specificity increased to 95.6% in screening for all cognitive impairment (MCI-HI and D-HI) from NC-HI. CONCLUSION: The MoCA-HA has been validated with a cutpoint which is comparable to the traditional MoCA. This tool may help clinicians to early identify older adult hearing-aid users for appropriate cognitive evaluation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".