MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390193614 · doi:10.1002/alz.075547

Montreal Cognitive Assessment MoCA‐XpressO: Validation of a Digital Self‐administered Cognitive Pre‐screening Tool for the General Adult Population

2023· article· en· W4390193614 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sivan Klil‐Drori, Katie Bodenstein, Lara Kojok, Johanna Gruber, Shuo Mila Sun, Youssef Ghantous, Ziad Nasreddine

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGreenfield Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPopulationReceiver operating characteristicVerbal fluency testDementiaMedicinePsychologyGerontologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentNeuropsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The population is aging worldwide, and the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia is expected to increase, adding demand for cognitive screening. A brief pre‐screening tool may allow self‐tracking of cognitive function and identify the “worried well” population, whom if pre‐screened will show no objective cognitive impairment, consequently reduce demand for cognitive screening. Therefore, we developed the MoCA‐XpressO, a brief home‐based cognitive pre‐screening tool. The purpose of this tool is to establish if further cognitive testing is necessary. Method We conducted a validation study for MoCA‐XpressO compared to MoCA test (version 8.1) as gold standard. Participants were recruited from MoCA clinic and a family practice. Ethics approval was received, and all participants provided informed consent. A crossover study design was applied to the MoCA‐XpressO and standard MoCA test; participants were randomized for the order of administration. Inclusion criteria included age ≥50, fluency in English and/or French, and minimum 6 years of education. Exclusion criteria included MoCA total score<11, and completion of MoCA during recent 3 months. Logistic regression model was built, and the accuracy of the model was evaluated by the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Result The MoCA‐XpressO evaluates 3 cognitive domains: processing speed, executive functions, and memory. Preliminary analysis (n = 44) showed a strong association between (1) MoCA Memory Index Score (MIS) and MoCA‐XpressO memory task score (p‐values<.001); (2) MoCA Executive Index Score and MoCA‐XpressO logical task score (p‐values<.03); and (3) total scores of MoCA test and MoCA‐XpressO (p‐values<.005). The ROC curve of the logistic model has an Area Under the Curve (AUC) around 0.85. With a cutoff probability of 0.45, the sensitivity was 89.2% and the specificity was 62.5%; with a cutoff probability of 0.6, the sensitivity was 71.4% and specificity was 87.5%. Full analysis (n≥80) will be available in July 2023. Conclusion The high values of AUC (0.85), indicate that MoCA‐XpressO may be strongly predictive of the standard MoCA. This suggests MoCA‐XpressO is a valid home‐based cognitive pre‐screening tool, also allowing self‐tracking of cognition over time. MoCA‐XpressO may differentiate the “worried‐well” from cognitively impaired population, consequently, reduce the high demand for cognitive screening in healthcare systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→