Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores of Veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel seeking mental health treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a widely used screening tool for mild cognitive impairment and is often used by health care providers working with Canadian Veterans for assessment of pension adjudication purposes. However, MoCA research with Veterans is limited. This study aimed to support clinical interpretation of the MoCA by describing test performance among 208 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel and Veterans seeking mental health treatment. Methods: Participants were Veterans (n = 189; 90.9%) and serving CAF personnel (n = 19; 9.1%) presenting to an operational stress injury (OSI) clinic for mental health assessment and treatment. MoCA data were depicted via histogram and cumulative frequency plot. Pearson correlations were used to explore the relation between total MoCA score and severity of depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, level of education, and age. Results: < 0.001). Discussion: Results suggest that MoCA scores below the published cut-off of 26 are frequent in this population, especially for more severely symptomatic clients or those with fewer years of education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".