MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197096003 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-136185/v1

Comparison between the accuracy of Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination in the detection of mild cognitive impairment

2021· preprint· en· W3197096003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeyshabur University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionCognitive impairmentMini–Mental State ExaminationCognitive declinePsychologyAudiologyReceiver operating characteristicMedicineGerontologyDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Ageing can cause major changes in the central nervous system of the body, resulting in cognitive decline and associated disorders. Therefore, there is a growing need for an effective cognitive screening method to enhance the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairments and to prevent occurring dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Our study aimed to compare the accuracy of MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination) and MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) while evaluating the independent and interaction effects of age and educational level on these screening tools in a healthy sample. Method: The data for the current study was based on the registration phase of the study during 2016-2018 in Neyshabour Longitudinal Study on Ageing (NeLSA). Both the MoCA and MMSE tests were used to assess cognitive decline among 3326 participants aged 50-94 years of old. The ROC curve analysis and the predictive values were performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MMSE to discriminate Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) from the cognitively healthy adult basis of MoCA scores as a gold test. A two-way ANCOVA was run to examine the effect of Age and Education level on MoCA and MMSE score, while controlling for a gender effect. Data were analyzed using MedCalc Statistical Software version 13.0.6 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium; http://www.medcalc.org; 2014). Results: The chi-square test shows that MoCA ((72% and 90%) significantly (p-value<0.001() classified more persons as cognitively impaired than the MMSE (45.1%), respectively; using a cutoff score of 24 on the MMSE, 23 and 26 on the MoCA. The cut-off point of below 25 yielded the highest Youden J index for the MMSE in discrimination between MCI and healthy basis of MOCA<23 with an AUC of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.89-0.91) and MOCA<26 with an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86-0.89). A two-way ANCOVA results show that the effect of education variable on the MMSE and MoCA score is more important than the age variable. Discussion: Although the cut-off scores give a clear indication of the sensitivity and specificity, they are unable to monitor the impact of confounders, which increase the risk of incorrect classification. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the use of demographically adjusted MoCA and MMSE scores that could provide clinicians with a more reliable estimation of the severity of cognitive impairment, thus increasing the instrument's clinical usefulness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.376 · 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