The Montreal cognitive assessment as a cognitive screening tool in sickle cell disease: Associations with clinically significant cognitive domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at risk for cognitive impairment, which causes significant morbidity. Guidelines support routine cognitive screening, but no screening test is validated in this population. We explored the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a possible screening test in SCD. We administered the MoCA; a literacy test, the Wide Range Achievement Test, fourth edition (WRAT-4); and a health literacy test, the Shortened Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) to adults with SCD and gathered clinical variables through chart review. Spearman's rho, Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests and quantile regression models were used. Among our sample of 49 adults with SCD, the median MoCA score was 25.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 22.0-28.0]. Higher educational attainment was associated with MoCA scores (p = 0.001). In multivariable models, MoCA scores were associated with S-TOFHLA (p = 0.001) and WRAT-4 Reading (p = 0.002) scores, and overt stroke (p = 0.03) at the median. This pilot study adds to the limited literature of cognitive screening tests in adults with SCD and demonstrates a relationship between MoCA scores and measures of literacy and health literacy. The MoCA is a promising option for briefly screening for cognitive impairment in adults with SCD, though further study is needed to confirm its validity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".