INNV-32. COMPARING THE MONTREAL COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT (MOCA) FULL AND 5-MINUTE PROTOCOLS IN MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT SCREENING OF ADULT CNS TUMOR PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) commonly occurs in primary CNS tumor patients (PCTP). Our group and others have reported on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as an MCI screening tool. Several abbreviated MoCA protocols have been developed for telehealth administration in other neurological diseases, with varied literature on scoring and clinical utility. We compared MoCA Full and 5-minute scores to assess utility in neuro-oncology. METHODS 71 PCTP completed the MoCA Full (abnormal: < 26/30) assessing: visuospatial/executive functioning, naming, memory, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation. Full scores were retrospectively recoded to the Pendlebury MoCA 5-minute protocol (abnormal: < 10/12) assessing: memory, delayed recall, and orientation. Correlation was assessed using Pearson’s coefficient. Disagreements between tests were examined using t-test and chi-square test. RESULTS Patients were primarily White (83%), college-educated (71%) males (54%) diagnosed with glioblastoma (20%), with average age of 43 years (range: 19-75), KPS > 80 (57%), prior radiation treatment (78%), and imaging surveillance at time of testing (79%). MoCA Full and 5-minute mean scores were 25.3 (SD: 4.8) and 9.9 (SD: 2.3), respectively. MCI was indicated in 32% (n= 23) of patients using MoCA Full and 27% (n= 19) using MoCA 5-minute. Where the protocols disagreed, MCI was detected only by MoCA Full in 6 patients (8%), and MoCA 5-minute in 2 patients (3%). Visuospatial/executive (p= 0.025) and abstraction (p< 0.001) subdomain scores, unique to MoCA Full, were significantly associated with MCI detected only by the MoCA Full; other subdomains, patient characteristics, and total score were not significant. The MoCA versions were highly correlated (r= 0.90). CONCLUSION High correlation and agreement between MoCA Full and 5-minute scores in this neuro-oncology patient population highlight potential telehealth utility of the MoCA 5-minute. Future prospective assessment of the MoCA 5-minute is warranted to describe optimal scoring threshold and utility in neuro-oncology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".