Performance of dialysis patients on the standard and basic Arabic versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objectives:</h3> To assess cognitive performance in Saudi patients on dialysis using Arabic versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and assess the reliability of the scales. <h3>Methods:</h3> We performed a cross-sectional study at the dialysis unit of King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh from April 2019 to March 2020. Patients ≥ 18 years of age with no history of dementia underwent cognitive assessment with the standard (MoCA-A) and basic (MoCA-B) Arabic versions, with repeat testing in a subset of participants. <h3>Results:</h3> Recruitment included 83 participants, 56 on hemodialysis (HD) and 27 on peritoneal dialysis (PD). The mean±SD for age was 49.99 (15.48), and for years of education was 10.29 (5.5). The mean score for MoCA-A was 21.03±5.35, and for MoCA-B was 23.45±5.14. Younger age, longer years of education and peritoneal dialysis were significantly associated with higher MoCA scores on both versions (<i>p</i><0.05). The ICC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.65, 0.91) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.58, 0.89) for MoCA-A and MoCA-B, respectively. The performance on the executive and calculation tasks were higher in the PD group on the MoCA-B. The recall mean score was higher in the PD group on the MoCA-A. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> The HD patients are at higher risk for cognitive impairment compared to PD patients. Age and education are important variables influencing performance. Both Arabic versions of the MoCA are reliable screening tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it