Clinimetrics of the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in adult-onset idiopathic focal dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at assessing the clinimetrics of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Italian cohort of patients with adult-onset idiopathic focal dystonia (AOIFD). N = 86 AOIFD patients and N = 92 healthy controls (HCs) were administered the MoCA. Patients further underwent the Trail-Making Test (TMT) and Babcock Memory Test (BMT), being also screened via the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Dimensional Apathy Scale (DAS). Factorial structure and internal consistency were assessed. Construct validity was tested against TMT, BMT, BDI-II and DAS scores, whilst diagnostics against the co-occurrence of a defective performance on at least one TMT measure and on the BMT. Case-control discrimination was examined. The association between MoCA scores and motor-functional measures was explored. The MoCA was underpinned by a mono-component structure and acceptably reliable at an internal level. It converged towards TMT and BMT scores, as well as with the DAS, whilst diverging from the BDI-II. Its adjusted scores accurately detected cognitive impairment (AUC = .86) at a cut-off of < 17.212. The MoCA discriminated patients from HCs (p < .001). Finally, it was unrelated to disease duration and severity, as well as to motor phenotypes. The Italian MoCA is a valid, diagnostically sound and feasible cognitive screener in AOIFD patients.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".