Screening for cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus: Application of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a Greek patient sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI) is one of the most frequent neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Given that extensive neuropsychological testing is not always feasible in routine clinical practice, brief cognitive screening tools are desirable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening tool for CI in SLE. METHODS: Consecutive SLE patients followed at a single centre were evaluated using MoCA and an extensive neuropsychological test battery (NPT), including the Digits Forward and Digits Backwards, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Memory Test, Trail Making Test, Stroop Colour-Word Test, Semantic and Phonetic Verbal Fluency tests and a 25-problem version of the General Adult Mental Ability test. The criterion validity of MoCA was assessed through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses using three different case definitions: i) against normative population data, ii) and iii) against average performance of a comparison group of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, to adjust for possible confounding effects of chronic illness and inflammatory processes on cognitive performance. The effect of patient-related (age, years of education, anxiety, depression, fatigue and pain) and disease-related (activity, damage, age at diagnosis, disease duration, use of glucocorticoid, psychotropic and pain medication) parameters on the MoCA was examined. RESULTS: < 0.001), but not by other demographic or clinical variables. The optimal cutoff for detecting CI, as defined on the basis of normative population data, was 23/30 points, demonstrating 73% sensitivity and 75% specificity. A cutoff of 22/30 points, using neuropsychological profiles of the RA group as inflammatory disease controls, exhibited higher sensitivity (100%, based on both definitions) and specificity (87% and 90%, depending on the definition). The standard cutoff of 26/30 points displayed excellent sensitivity (91-100%) with significant expenses in specificity (43-45%). CONCLUSION: The MoCA is an easily applied tool, which appears to be reliable for identifying CI in SLE patients. The standard cutoff score (26/30) ensures excellent sensitivity while lower cutoff scores (22-23/30) may, also, provide higher specificity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".