Validation of the German Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment-H for hearing-impaired
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hearing loss and dementia are highly prevalent in older age and often co-occur. Most neurocognitive screening tests are auditory-based, and performance can be affected by hearing loss. To address the need for a cognitive screening test suitable for people with hearing loss, a visual version of the Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment was developed and recently validated in English (MoCA-H), with good sensitivity and specificity for identifying cases of dementia. As the MoCA is known to perform differently across languages, revalidation of the German MoCA-H was necessary. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the German MoCA-H among those with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia and to determine an appropriate performance cut- off. Materials and methods: A total of 346 participants aged 60-97 years (M = 77.18, SD = 9.56) were included; 160 were cognitively healthy, 79 with MCI and 107 were living with dementia based on the GPCOG and a detailed medical questionnaire as well as a comprehensive examination by a neurologist in case of cognitive impairment. Performance cut-offs for normal cognition, MCI and dementia were estimated for the MoCA-H score and z-scores using the English MoCA-H cut-off, the balanced cut-off and the Youden's Index. Results: A mean score of 25.49 (SD = 3.01) points in the German MoCA-H was achieved in cognitively healthy participants, 20.08 (SD = 2.29) in the MCI and 15.80 (SD = 3.85) in the dementia group. The optimum cut-off for the detection of dementia was ≤21 points with a sensitivity of 96.3% and a specificity of 90%. In the MCI group, a cut-off range between 22 and 24 points is proposed to increase diagnostic accuracy to a sensitivity and specificity of 97.5 and 90%, respectively. Conclusion: The German MoCA-H seems to be a sensitive screening test for MCI and dementia and should replace commonly used auditory-based cognitive screening tests in older adults. The choice of a cut-off range might help to better reflect the difficulty in clinical reality in detecting MCI. However, screening test batteries cannot replace a comprehensive cognitive evaluation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".