MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281770098 · doi:10.1080/00207454.2022.2082966

Construction of a short version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) rating scale for the Thai population using Partial Least Squares analysis

2022· article· en· W4281770098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Solaphat Hemrungrojn, Arisara Amrapala, Michaël Maes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCronbach's alphaConstruct validityRating scalePsychologyPopulationConcurrent validityCognitionStatisticsClinical psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMathematicsCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) rating scale is frequently used to assess cognitive impairments in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to a) evaluate the construct validity of the MoCA and its subdomains or whether the MoCA can be improved by feature reduction, and b) develop a short version of the MoCA (MoCA-Brief) for the Thai population. METHODS: We recruited 181 participants, namely 60 healthy controls, 61 aMCI, and 60 AD patients. RESULTS: < 0.001) and shows adequate concurrent, test-retest, and inter-rater validity. CONCLUSION: The construct validity of the MoCA may be improved by deleting five items. The new MoCA-Brief rating scale deserves validation in independent samples and especially in other countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207