A Comparison of MMSE and MoCA for Following Cognitive Performance with a Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are two commonly used cognitive screening and diagnostic tools. Method At baseline, participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were divided into four groups based on their cognitive diagnoses: healthy control (HC), early mild cognitive impairment (EMCI), late mild cognitive impairment (LMCI), and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). MMSE or MoCA scores were compared among the four groups using one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with post‐hoc Bonferroni correction. For those participants who had both MMSE and MoCA assessments done, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed between the two assessments for each visit. Result The MMSE scores were significantly different among the four groups at baseline, which was true for each of the three annual follow‐up visits. By contrast, the MoCA scores were not significantly different between HC and EMCI groups at either baseline or any of the follow‐up visits. For participants with a diagnosis of LMCI, the cognitive performance deteriorated in a linear manner 12 months after the baseline, which was independent of MMSE or MoCA. At last, the MMSE scores were moderately related to MoCA scores, which got stronger along with the time of follow‐up. Conclusion MMSE and MoCA are comparable as cognitive assessment tools to monitor cognitive changes. In addition, the measurements of MMSE and MoCA are moderately correlated for the follow‐up visits.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".