Comparing Montreal Cognitive Assessment Performance in Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Age- and Education-Adjusted Cutoffs vs. Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is recommended for general cognitive evaluation in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. However, age- and education-adjusted cutoffs specifically for PD have not been developed or systematically validated across PD cohorts with diverse education levels. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we utilized data from 1,293 Korean patients with PD whose cognitive diagnoses were determined through comprehensive neuropsychological assessments. Age- and education-adjusted cutoffs were formulated based on 1,202 patients with PD. To identify the optimal machine learning model, clinical parameters and MoCA domain scores from 416 patients with PD were used. Comparative analyses between machine learning. METHODS: and different cutoff criteria were conducted on an additional 91 consecutive patients with PD. RESULTS: The cutoffs for cognitive impairment decrease with increasing age within the same education level. Similarly, lower education levels within the same age group correspond to lower cutoffs. For individuals aged 60-80 years, cutoffs were set as follows: 25 or 24 years for those with more than 12 years of education, 23 or 22 years for 10-12 years, and 21 or 20 years for 7-9 years. Comparisons between age- and education-adjusted cutoffs and the machine learning method showed comparable accuracies. The cutoff method resulted in a higher sensitivity (0.8627), whereas machine learning yielded higher specificity (0.8250). CONCLUSION: Both the age- and education-adjusted cutoff. METHODS: and machine learning. METHODS: demonstrated high effectiveness in detecting cognitive impairment in PD patients. This study highlights the necessity of tailored cutoffs and suggests the potential of machine learning to improve cognitive assessment in PD patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".