MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287930390 · doi:10.33588/rn.7503.2021527

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): normas para la población del área metropolitana de Rosario, Argentina

2022· article· es· W4287930390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pablo Martino, Gerardo Alfonso, Daniel Gustavo Politis

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Neurología · 2022
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNormativeMetropolitan areaGerontologyContext (archaeology)PopulationDemographyPsychologyLife expectancyCognitive impairmentGeographyCognitionMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Population aging is a global phenomenon linked to increased life expectancy. In Argentina, it is expected that by 2025 those over 60 will represent 17.3% of the population, while by 2050 it will rise to 25.3%. Among the pathologies associated with aging, cognitive impairment and dementias represent an important problem for public health and demand effective instruments for their early detection. OBJECTIVE: Obtain normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in Argentine adults and seniors in the Rosario Metropolitan Area. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The MoCA-Spanish version was administered according to the instructions published in the original version. An ad hoc survey was also administered to collect sociodemographic information and medical history. The influence of some sociodemographic variables on performance was analyzed. 225 adult residents of the Rosario Metropolitan Area participated in the final sample (age: M = 66.1, standard deviation = 8.7). RESULTS: Educational level predicted 13% of the variance of the total MoCA score, -F (3, 221) = 12.11; p < 0.01-. Other variables considered, such as age and sex, were not significant for predicting the score. CONCLUSION: The normative data obtained suggest a cut-off point of 18 for people with primary education and of 22 for people with secondary or higher education. It should be noted that they are below those indicated in the pre-existing regulatory data. The importance of using norms adjusted to the sociocultural context is highlighted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de NeurologíaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207