Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic for discrimination among different severities of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lin Huang,1 Ke-Liang Chen,1 Bi-Ying Lin,1 Le Tang,1 Qian-Hua Zhao,1 Ying-Ru Lv,2,* Qi-Hao Guo1,* 1Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; 2Department of Radiology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China *These authors contributed equally to this work Objectives: To find out whether the Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC) and its subtests could be applied in discrimination among cognitively normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), and furthermore, to determine the optimal cutoffs most sensitive to distinguish between them.Design: A cross-sectional validation study.Setting: Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China.Participants: There was a total of 1,969 participants: individuals with MCI (n=663), mild (n=345), moderate (n=441) AD, and cognitively NC (n=520) were recruited from the Memory Clinic, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China.Measurements: Baseline MoCA-BC scores were collected from firsthand data. Two subtests were calculated from MoCA-BC: the Memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-MIS) and the Non-memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-NM).Results: MoCA-BC was an effective cognitive tool to discriminate among NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD in the Chinese elderly across all education groups, implying that it was efficient not only for detecting MCI, but for different severities of AD as well. For MCI screening, the total score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-T) and MoCA-BC-MIS had similar high sensitivity and specificity. For discrimination among MCI, mild and moderate AD, the MoCA-BC-T and MoCA-BC-NM had similar performance.Conclusion: MoCA-BC is an effective cognitive test to distinguish between NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD among the Chinese elderly with various levels of education. Keywords: mild cognitive impairment, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Alzheimer’s disease, cutoff study
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".