Accuracy of Machine Learning Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the Diagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is recommended for assessing general cognition in Parkinson's disease (PD). Several cutoffs of MoCA scores for diagnosing PD with cognitive impairment (PD-CI) have been proposed, with varying sensitivity and specificity. This study investigated the utility of machine learning algorithms using MoCA cognitive domain scores for improving diagnostic performance for PD-CI. METHODS: In total, 2,069 MoCA results were obtained from 397 patients with PD enrolled in the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative database with a diagnosis of cognitive status based on comprehensive neuropsychological assessments. Using the same number of MoCA results randomly sampled from patients with PD with normal cognition or PD-CI, discriminant validity was compared between machine learning (logistic regression, support vector machine, or random forest) with domain scores and a cutoff method. RESULTS: Based on cognitive status classification using a dataset that permitted sampling of MoCA results from the same individual (n = 221 per group), no difference was observed in accuracy between the cutoff value method (0.74 ± 0.03) and machine learning (0.78 ± 0.03). Using a more stringent dataset that excluded MoCA results (n = 101 per group) from the same patients, the accuracy of the cutoff method (0.66 ± 0.05), but not that of machine learning (0.74 ± 0.07), was significantly reduced. Inclusion of cognitive complaints as an additional variable improved the accuracy of classification using the machine learning method (0.87-0.89). CONCLUSION: Machine learning analysis using MoCA domain scores is a valid method for screening cognitive impairment in PD.
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 | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".