Montreal Cognitive Assessment ( <scp>MoCA</scp> ) <scp>XpressO</scp> : Validation of a digital self‐administered cognitive prescreening tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need for cognitive testing is increasing with the aging population and the advent of new Alzheimer disease therapies. To respond to the increased demand, the XpressO was developed as a self-administered digital cognitive prescreening tool that will help distinguish between populations of subjective and objective cognitive impairment according to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). METHODS: This is a prospective validation study. XpressO is composed of tasks that assess memory and executive functions. It is validated compared to the digital MoCA as a gold standard. Out of 118 participants screened from the MoCA Clinic and a family practice clinic, 88 met inclusion criteria, two participants had missing data due to incomplete tasks, 86 participants were included in the analysis; the mean age was 70.34 years. A logistic regression model was built, and its accuracy was evaluated by the sensitivity, specificity, and Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic. RESULTS: Analysis showed strong correlation between (1) XpressO memory tasks scores and the MoCA Memory Index Score (p-values < 0.001), and between (2) XpressO sub-test scores and MoCA total score (p-values < 0.005). The AUC for predicting MoCA performance is 0.845. To classify individuals with normal and abnormal MoCA scores, two threshold values were introduced for the total XpressO scores: sensitivity of 91% at a cutoff of 72, specificity of 90% at a cutoff of 42, and an undetermined range in between. CONCLUSION: XpressO demonstrated high AUC, high sensitivity and specificity to predict cognitive performance compared to the digital MoCA. It may provide efficient cognitive prescreening by identifying individuals who would benefit from further clinical assessments, potentially reducing waiting times and high burden on healthcare clinics.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".