Telehealth equivalence of the Montreal cognitive assessment ( <scp>MoCA</scp> ): Results from the Emory healthy brain study ( <scp>EHBS</scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated potential differences between in-person cognitive testing and video telehealth administration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). In addition to the MoCA, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were administered. METHODS: MoCA scores from participants in the Emory Health Brain Study (EHBS) were contrasted based upon whether they were administered the MoCA in the standard face-to-face (F2F) assessment setting (n = 1205) or using a video telehealth administration (n = 491). All EHBS participants were self-reported to be cognitively normal. RESULTS: MoCA scores did not differ across administration method (F2F MoCA = 26.6, SD = 2.4; telehealth MoCA = 26.5, SD = 2.4). The 95% confidence interval for difference in administration was small (CI = -0.16 to 0.34). When examining MoCA domain scores, administration differences were either associated with no statistically significant effect, or if present due to large sample sizes, were associated with small effects and differences <0.5 point. Telehealth patients reported slightly lower PHQ-8 scores (F2F PHQ-8 = 2.0, SD = 2.5; telehealth PHQ-8 = 1.6, SD = 2.1), although these scores are well within the normal range. No group difference in GAD-7 scores was present (F2F GAD-7 = 1.4, SD = 2.4; telehealth PHQ-8 = 1.4, SD = 2.4). DISCUSSION: This report with its large sample size and between subject cohort provides complementary evidence to smaller test-retest studies, further supporting equivalence of MoCA telehealth testing to F2F MoCA administration. These findings provide additional reassurance that administration mode does not introduce systematic performance differences for MoCA test administration, thereby permitting telehealth MoCA testing to be applied confidently for both clinical and research applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".