Validity and diagnostics of the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in non-demented Parkinson’s disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at: (1) assessing, in an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, the construct validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) against both first- and second-level cognitive measures; (2) delivering an exhaustive and updated evaluation of its diagnostic properties. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of N = 237 non-demented PD patients having been administered the MoCA was addressed, of whom N = 169 further underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and N = 68 the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS). A subsample (N = 60) also underwent a second-level cognitive battery encompassing measures of attention/executive functioning, language, memory, praxis and visuo-spatial abilities. Construct validity was assessed against both the PD-CRS and the second-level cognitive battery. Diagnostics were tested via receiver-operating characteristics analyses against a below-cut-off MMSE score. RESULTS: The MoCA was associated with both PD-CRS scores (p < .001) and the vast majority of second-level cognitive measures (ps < .003). Both raw and adjusted MoCA scores proved to be highly accurate to the aim of identifying patients with MMSE-confirmed cognitive dysfunctions. A MoCA score adjusted for age and education according to the most recent normative dataset and < 19.015 is herewith suggested as indexing cognitive impairment in this population (AUC = .92; sensitivity = .92; specificity = .80). DISCUSSION: The Italian MoCA is a valid and diagnostically sound screener for global cognitive inefficiency in non-demented PD patients. Further studies are nevertheless needed that confirm its diagnostic values against a measure other than the MMSE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".