Meta-analysis of Montreal cognitive assessment diagnostic accuracy in amnestic mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is one of the most widely-used cognitive screening instruments and has been translated into several different languages and dialects. Although the original validation study suggested to use a cutoff of ≤26, subsequent studies have shown that lower cutoff values may yield fewer false-positive indications of cognitive impairment. The aim of this study was to summarize the diagnostic accuracy and mean difference of the MoCA when comparing cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults to those with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 22 February 2022. Meta-analyses for area under the curve (AUC) and standardized mean difference (SMD) values were performed. Results Fifty-five observational studies that included 17,343 CU and 8,413 aMCI subjects were selected for inclusion. Thirty-nine studies were used in the AUC analysis while 44 were used in the SMD analysis. The overall AUC value was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.87) indicating good diagnostic accuracy and a large effect size was noted for the SMD analysis (Hedge’s g = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.64). Both analyses had high levels of between-study heterogeneity. The median cutoff score for identifying aMCI was <24. Discussion and conclusion The MoCA has good diagnostic accuracy for detecting aMCI across several different languages. The findings of this meta-analysis also support the use of 24 as the optimal cutoff when the MoCA is used to screen for suspected cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.028 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".