Optimal MoCA cutoffs for detecting biologically-defined patients with MCI and early dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this phase II psychometric study on the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), we tested the clinicometric properties of Italian norms for patients with mild cognitive impairment (PwMCI) and early dementia (PwD) and provided optimal cutoffs for diagnostic purposes. METHODS: Retrospective data collection was performed for consecutive patients with clinically and biologically defined MCI and early dementia. Forty-five patients (24 PwMCI and 21 PwD) and 25 healthy controls were included. Raw MoCA scores were adjusted according to the conventional 1-point correction (Nasreddine) and Italian norms (Conti, Santangelo, Aiello). The diagnostic properties of the original cutoff (< 26) and normative cutoffs, namely, the upper limits (uLs) of equivalent scores (ES) 1, 2, and 3, were evaluated. ROC curve analysis was performed to obtain optimal cutoffs. RESULTS: The original cutoff demonstrated high sensitivity (0.93 [95% CI 0.84-0.98]) but low specificity (0.44 [0.32-0.56]) in discriminating between patients and controls. Nominal normative cutoffs (ES0 uLs) showed excellent specificity (SP range = 0.96-1.00 [0.88-1.00]) but poor sensitivity (SE range = 0.09-0.24 [0.04-0.36]). The optimal cutoff for Nasreddine's method was 23.50 (SE = 0.82 [0.71-0.90]; SP = 0.72 [0.60-0.82]). Optimal cutoffs were 20.97, 22.85, and 22.29 (SE range = 0.69-0.73 [0.57-0.83], SP range = 0.88-0.92 [0.77-0.97]) for Conti's, Santangelo's, and Aiello's methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Using the 1-point correction, combined with a cutoff of 23.50, might be useful in ambulatory settings with a large turnout. Our optimal cutoffs can offset the poor sensitivity of Italian cutoffs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".