MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200262820 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.773281

Determining Appropriate Screening Tools and Cutoffs for Cognitive Impairment in the Chinese Elderly

2021· article· en· W4200262820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shaowei Zhang, Qi Qiu, Shixing Qian, Xiang Lin, Yan Feng, Lin Sun, Shifu Xiao, Jinghua Wang, Yuan Fang, Xia Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Municipal Health Commission
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaReceiver operating characteristicMedicineCognitive impairmentGerontologyElderly peopleCutoffCognitionMini–Mental State ExaminationInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are the most commonly used tools for cognitive impairment screening. The present study aimed to investigate the ability of the MOCA and MMSE to differentiate between cognitively normal elderly individuals, MCI patients and dementia patients at different ages and education levels and to establish the optimal cutoff scores of the MoCA and MMSE for MCI and dementia in the Chinese elderly. Methods: A total of 2,954 Chinese elderly individuals, including 1,746 normal controls, 599 MCI patients and 249 dementia patients, were consecutively recruited in the study. The optimal cutoffs for MoCA and MMSE were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis among the different age and education levels in the three groups. Furthermore, comparison of ROC curves were made to evaluate the performances of the two tests. Results: The area under the curve(AUC) of the MoCA (0.82) for detecting MCI was significantly higher than that of the MMSE (0.75) ( P < 0.001). When the sample was divided according to age and education level, the AUC of the MoCA (0.84) was higher than those of the MMSE (0.71) for MCI ( P < 0.001) in the younger and more highly-educated groups. The optimal cutoff scores of the MoCA for the groups aged ≤ 75 years old and education ≤ 6 years, aged > 75 years old and education ≤ 6 years, aged ≤ 75 years old and education > 6 years, aged > 75 years old and education > 6 years in screening for MCI were identified as 19.5, 15.5, 24.5 and 24.5, respectively, and the optimal cutoff scores for dementia were 18.5, 10.5, 18.5 and 20.5, respectively. For MMSE in the above four groups, the cutoff scores to detect MCI were 26.5, 22.5, 28.5 and 26.5, respectively, and the optimal cutoff scores for dementia were 23.5, 19.5, 23.5 and 23.5, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to MMSE, the MoCA is more suitable for discriminating MCI in younger and more highly educated elderly Chinese individuals. However, the MMSE has advantage over MoCA in screening MCI in individuals with lower education levels and the older groups of Chinese elderly.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207