Effect of Education on Discriminability of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Compared to Mini-Mental State Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been known as a screening test for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) better than Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). However, in previous domestic studies, no significant difference was found in the discriminability between MoCA and MMSE. Researchers have suggested that this might be because older Koreans are less educated than older Westerners. This study was conducted to examine the effect of education on the discriminability of MoCA compared to the MMSE. Methods: Participants were 123 cognitively normal elderly, 118 with vascular MCI, 108 with amnestic MCI, 121 with vascular dementia, and 113 with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. The Korean-MoCA (K-MoCA) and Korean-MMSE (K-MMSE) were administered. Multiple regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed. Results: In all participants, education significantly affected both K-MoCA and K-MMSE scores along with age. The effect of education was re-examined by subgroup analysis after dividing subjects according to the level of education. Effect of education on K-MoCA and K-MMSE was only shown in the group with <9 years of education. ROC curve analyses revealed that the discriminability of K-MoCA to differentiate between vascular MCI and normal elderly was significantly higher than that of K-MMSE. When re-examining subgroups divided by education level, however, this higher discriminability of K-MoCA disappeared in the group with <9 years of education. Conclusions: These results indicate no difference in discriminating cognitive deficits between K-MoCA and K-MMSE in Korean elderly with <9 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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".