MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399674728 · doi:10.1002/epi4.12991

Validity of the <scp>MoCA</scp> as a cognitive screening tool in epilepsy: Are there implications for global care and research?

2024· article· en· W4399674728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anny Reyes, Bruce P. Hermann, Divya Prabhakaran, Lisa Ferguson, Dace Almane, Jerry J. Shih, Vicente Iragui‐Madoz, Aaron F. Struck, Vineet Punia, Jana E. Jones, Robyn M. Busch, Carrie R. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthNational Academy of NeuropsychologyBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentFluencyCognitionEpilepsyExecutive dysfunctionPsychologyAudiologyMedicineClinical psychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a widely available cognitive screener, the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), to detect cognitive impairment in older patients (age ≥ 55) with epilepsy residing in the US, using the International Classification of Cognitive Disorders in Epilepsy (IC-CoDE) as the gold standard. METHODS: Fifty older adults with focal epilepsy completed the MoCA and neuropsychological measures of memory, language, executive function, and processing speed/attention. The IC-CoDE taxonomy divided participants into IC-CoDE Impaired and Intact groups. Sensitivity and specificity across several MoCA cutoffs were examined. Spearman correlations examined relationships between the MoCA total score and clinical and demographic variables and MoCA domain scores and individual neuropsychological tests. RESULTS: IC-CoDE impaired patients demonstrated significantly lower scores on the MoCA total, visuospatial/executive, naming, language, delayed recall, and orientation domain scores (Cohen's d range: 0.336-2.77). The recommended MoCA cutoff score < 26 had an overall accuracy of 72%, 88.2% sensitivity, and 63.6% specificity. A MoCA cutoff score < 24 yielded optimal sensitivity (70.6%) and specificity (78.8%), with overall accuracy of 76%. Higher MoCA total scores were associated with greater years of education (p = 0.016) and fewer antiseizure medications (p = 0.049). The MoCA memory domain was associated with several standardized measures of memory, MoCA language domain with category fluency, and MoCA abstraction domain with letter fluency. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides initial validation of the MoCA as a useful screening tool for older adults with epilepsy that can be used to identify patients who may benefit from comprehensive neuropsychological testing. Further, we demonstrate that a lower cutoff (i.e., <24) better captures cognitive impairment in older adults with epilepsy than the generally recommended cutoff and provides evidence for construct overlap between MoCA domains and standard neuropsychological tests. Critically, similar efforts in other regions of the world are needed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) can be a helpful tool to screen for cognitive impairment in older adults with epilepsy. We recommend that adults 55 or older with epilepsy who score less than 24 on the MoCA are referred to a neuropsychologist for a comprehensive evaluation to assess any changes in cognitive abilities and mood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsia OpenSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207