Using the Montreal cognitive assessment to identify individuals with subtle cognitive decline.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dementia is a devastating neurological disease that may be better managed if diagnosed earlier when subclinical neurodegenerative changes are already present, including subtle cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment. In this study, we used item-level performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to identify individuals with subtle cognitive decline. METHOD: -modes cluster analysis. These clusters were validated and examined for association with convergent neuropsychological tests. The clusters were then compared and characterized using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: A three-cluster solution had 77.3% precision, with Cluster 1 (high performing) displaying no deficits in performance, Cluster 2 (memory deficits) displaying lower memory performance, and Cluster 3 (compound deficits) displaying lower performance on memory and executive function. Age at MoCA (older in compound deficits), gender (more females in memory deficits), and marital status (fewer married in compound deficits) were significantly different among clusters. Age was not associated with increased odds of membership in the high-performing cluster compared to the others. CONCLUSIONS: We identified three clusters of individuals classified as cognitively unimpaired using cluster analysis. Individuals in the compound deficits cluster performed lower on the MoCA and were older and less often married than individuals in other clusters. Demographic analyses suggest that cluster identity was due to a combination of both cognitive and clinical factors. Identifying individuals at risk for future cognitive decline using the MoCA could help them receive earlier evidence-based interventions to slow further cognitive decline. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".