A Hierarchical Bayesian Latent Class Model for the Diagnostic Performance of Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Screening Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are low costing and noninvasive neuropsychological tests in screening Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). There is no consensus on which test performs better in detecting MCI due to AD based on the different imperfect reference standards. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of MMSE and MoCA for screening MCI due to AD in the absence of a gold standard. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched for relevant studies until April, 2022. A hierarchical Bayesian latent class model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MoCA and MMSE in the absence of a gold standard. RESULTS: 90 eligible studies covering 21273 individuals for MMSE, 26631 individuals for MoCA were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 0.71(95%CI: 0.67-0.74) for MMSE and 0.85(95%CI: 0.83-0.88) for MoCA, while the pooled specificity was 0.71(95%CI: 0.68-0.74) for MMSE and 0.79(95%CI: 0.76-0.81) for MoCA. MoCA was useful to "rule in" and "rule out" the diagnosis of MCI due to AD with higher positive likelihood ratio (4.07; 95%CI: 3.60-4.62) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.18; 95%CI: 0.16-0.22). Moreover, the diagnostic odds ratio of MoCA was 22.08(95%CI: 17.24-28.29), which showed significantly favorable diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: It suggests that MoCA has greater diagnostic performance than MMSE for differentiating MCI due to AD when the gold standard is absent. However, these results should be taken with caution given the heterogeneity observed.
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 | 0.097 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".