The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a valid cognitive screening tool for cardiac arrest survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The survival rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients has increased over the past decades. This gives rise to a growing number of patients with hypoxic-ischemic brain damage and cognitive impairment. Currently, cognitive impairment is underdiagnosed in OHCA patients. There is a need for a validated cognitive screening instrument to identify patients with cognitive impairment. This study aimed to examine the diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients after OHCA. METHODS: Survivors (age ≥ 18 years) of OHCA completed the MoCA and a gold standard neuropsychological test battery, including tests for memory, attention, perception, language, reasoning, and executive functioning, at around one year after OHCA. Results of the MoCA are related to the results of the neuropsychological test battery. Analyses of diagnostic accuracy included receiver operating characteristics and calculation of predictive values. RESULTS: We included 54 OHCA survivors (mean age = 57.3, 74% male). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.8, 95% CI [0.67, 0.93]. The MoCA showed excellent sensitivity of 86%, 95% CI [57, 98] and adequate specificity of 70.0%, 95% CI [53, 83] to detect cognitive impairment at the regular cut-off score of 26. The positive predictive value of the MoCA was 50%, 95% CI [30, 70] and the negative predictive value was 93%, 95% CI [76, 99]. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the MoCA may be a valid cognitive screening instrument for use in the OHCA patient population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".