Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) performance in Huntington’s disease patients correlates with cortical and caudate atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huntington's Disease (HD) is an autosomal neurodegenerative disease characterized by motor, cognitive, and psychiatric symptoms. Cognitive impairment develops gradually in HD patients, progressing later into a severe cognitive dysfunction. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief screening test commonly employed to detect mild cognitive impairment, which has also been useful to assess cognitive decline in HD patients. However, the relationship between MoCA performance and brain structural integrity in HD patients remains unclear. Therefore, to explore this relationship we analyzed if cortical thinning and subcortical nuclei volume differences correlated with HD patients' MoCA performance. Twenty-two HD patients and twenty-two healthy subjects participated in this study. T1-weighted images were acquired to analyze cortical thickness and subcortical nuclei volumes. Group comparison analysis showed a significantly lower score in the MoCA global performance of HD patients. Also, the MoCA total score correlated with cortical thinning of fronto-parietal and temporo-occipital cortices, as well as with bilateral caudate volume differences in HD patients. These results provide new insights into the effectiveness of using the MoCA test to detect cognitive impairment and the brain atrophy pattern associated with the cognitive status of prodromal/early HD patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".