Consequences of age and education correction of cognitive screening tests – A simulation study of the MoCA test in Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive screening tools are widely used in clinical practice to screen for age-related cognitive impairment and dementia. These tools' test scores are known to be influenced by age and education, leading to routine correction of raw scores for these factors. Despite these corrections being common practice, there is evidence suggesting that corrected scores may perform worse in terms of discrimination than raw scores. OBJECTIVE: To address the ongoing debate in the field of dementia research, we assessed the impact of the corrections on discrimination, specificity, and sensitivity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test in Italy, both for the overall population and across age and education strata. METHODOLOGY: We created a realistic model of the resident population in Italy in terms of age, education, cognitive impairment and test scores, and performed a simulation study. RESULTS: We confirmed that the discrimination performance was higher for raw scores than for corrected scores in discriminating patients with cognitive impairment from individuals without (areas under the curve of 0.947 and 0.923 respectively). With thresholds determined on the overall population, raw scores showed higher sensitivities for higher-risk age-education groups and higher specificities for lower-risk groups. Conversely, corrected scores showed uniform sensitivity and specificity across demographic strata, and thus better performance for certain age-education groups. CONCLUSION: Raw and corrected scores show different performances due to the underlying causal relationships between the variables. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, the optimal choice between raw and corrected scores depends on the aims and preferences of practitioners and policymakers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".