Validation of the Argentine version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MOCA): A screening tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia in Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. The MoCA is a brief useful test to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia (MD). To date, no Argentine cross-cultural adapted validations of the Spanish version have been reported. Objective: To validate the MoCA in the elderly and study its usefulness in MCI and MD. Methods: This study included 399 individuals over 60 years old evaluated in the Cognitive-Behavioral Department (2017-2018). Patients with<3 years of education, sensory disturbances, psychiatric disorders, or moderate-severe dementia were excluded. The control group comprised cognitively normal subjects. Participants were classified according to neuropsychological assessment and clinical standard criteria into Control, MCI or MD groups. A locally adapted MoCA (MOCA-A) was administered to the patients and controls. Results: Mean educational level was 10.34 years (SD 3.5 years). MoCA-A score differed significantly among groups (p<0.0001). MoCA-A performance correlated with educational level (r: 0.406 p<0.00001). Adopting a cut-off score ≥25 (YI=0.55), the sensitivity for MCI was 84.8% and for MD 100%, with specificity of 69.7%. When adding a single point to the score in patients with ≤12 years of education, the specificity of the test reached 81%. Conclusion: The MoCA-A is an accurate reliable screening test for MCI and MD in Argentina.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".