A-7 Discriminating between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease on the MoCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a suitable, sensitive, and specific cognitive screener for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Previous research has found markers to discriminate between MCI and Alzheimer’s disease (ad) on MoCA subtest scores. Specifically, impaired performance on the clock drawing (i.e., number and hand placement), rhino naming, serial 7’s, word recall, and orientation were suggestive of ad. The aim of the present study is to assess for discrimination patterns in MoCA performance between MCI and ad.Method: Data was collected through the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC). A sample of MCI (n = 1143; 51% female, 82% White, 15% Black, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander) and ad groups (n = 1339; 56% female, 89% White, 9% Black, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander) were examined. Results An initial independent t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in MoCA scores for MCI (M = 22.01, SD = 3.49) and ad (M = 14.46, SD = 6.05; t(2480) = 38.72, p = 0.000, Cohen’s d = 1.53). Additional t-tests were performed to compare MoCA subtest scores and domain scores for diagnostic groups. There was a statistically significant difference for MCI and ad groups across all MoCA subtests and domains. Despite no discrimination in profiles noted on t-tests, further examination using normal distribution revealed worse performance on trails, clock hands, serial 7’s, repetition, fluency, date, and place in ad groups. Conclusions Consistent with previous findings, clock hands, serial 7’s, and orientation were able to discriminate between ad and MCI. This study found further discrimination in trails, repetition, and fluency. These findings may allow for clinicians to use these patterns of performance as early cognitive markers of impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".