Evaluation of the Accuracy of Cognitive Screening Tests in Detecting Dementia Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease: A Hierarchical Bayesian Latent Class Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) are neuropsychological tests commonly used by physicians for screening cognitive dysfunction of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Due to different imperfect reference standards, the performance of MoCA and MMSE do not reach consensus. It is necessary to evaluate the consistence and differentiation of MoCA and MMSE in the absence of a gold standard for AD. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the accuracy of MoCA and MMSE in screening AD without a gold standard reference test. METHODS: Studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Chinese Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Cochrane Library. Our search was limited to studies published in English and Chinese before August 2021. A hierarchical Bayesian latent class model was performed in meta-analysis when the gold standard was absent. RESULTS: A total of 67 studies comprising 5,554 individuals evaluated for MoCA and 76,862 for MMSE were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 0.934 (95% CI 0.905 to 0.954) for MoCA and 0.883 (95% CI 0.859 to 0.903) for MMSE, while the pooled specificity was 0.899 (95% CI 0.859 to 0.928) for MoCA and 0.903 (95% CI 0.879 to 0.923) for MMSE. MoCA was useful to rule out dementia associated with AD with lower negative likelihood ratio (LR-) (0.074, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.108). MoCA showed better performance with higher diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (124.903, 95% CI 67.459 to 231.260). CONCLUSION: MoCA had better performance than MMSE in screening dementia associated with AD from patients with mild cognitive impairment or healthy controls.
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 | 0.068 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.091 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".