Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): An update normative study for the Portuguese population
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
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief cognitive screening instrument that is known for its good psychometric properties and sensitivity to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). After ten years, it became relevant to update the previous Portuguese normative study due to changes in the population and some limitations present in the study itself. The study sample was composed of 860 cognitively healthy adults, stratified according to verified distribution of the Portuguese population across several sociodemographic variables. All participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery, in which the MoCA was included. The analysis of the relationships between the sociodemographic variables and the MoCA show that age and educational level had a significant effect on MoCA scores, with educational level being the better predictor. These results foster the consideration of age and educational level in the development of normative data. The present study contributes to a reliable update of the normative data of MoCA. The new age groups and more stratified norms comply with the natural changes on the Portuguese population, providing an increase of power and clinical accuracy. The presented norms consider the cognitive domains subscores, consequently improving the comprehension and utility of the results obtained from the MoCA test.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it