MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400702446 · doi:10.1159/000540372

The Prognostic Test Accuracy of the Short and Standard Forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

2024· article· en· W4400702446 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamar Abzhandadze, Olga I Berg, Anastasios Mavridis, Elias Lindvall, Terence J. Quinn, Katharina S. Sunnerhagen, Erik Lundström

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorrbacka-EugeniastiftelsenSahlgrenska UniversitetssjukhusetStiftelsen Handlanden Hjalmar Svenssons
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitionStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentTest (biology)Cognitive Assessment SystemPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment is a critical concern in stroke care, and international guidelines recommend early cognitive screening. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic accuracy of both the short and standard forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in predicting long-term cognitive recovery following a stroke. METHODS: For this study, we used data from the Efficacy of Fluoxetine - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) study, which encompassed stroke patients from 35 Swedish centers over the period from 2014 to 2019. Cognitive assessments were initially conducted at 2-15 days post-stroke, with follow-up data gathered at 6 months. We used the MoCA for objective cognitive evaluation. For assessing subjective cognitive impairment, we used the memory and thinking domain of the Stroke Impact Scale. For psychometric evaluation of the short Swedish version of MoCA (s-MoCA-SWE), we used cross tables and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 1,141 patients (62.2% men; median [interquartile range; IQR] age, 72.3 [13.2] years; median [IQR] stroke severity, 3.0 [3.0]). At baseline, the prevalence of cognitive impairment was 71.7% according to the s-MoCA-SWE (≤12) and 67.0% according to the MoCA (≤25). The s-MoCA-SWE demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.3% for correctly identifying patients with objective cognitive impairment and 81.5% for identifying those with subjective impairments at 6 months. Although the s-MoCA-SWE had higher sensitivity, the MoCA had a more balanced sensitivity and specificity in detecting both subjective and objective cognitive impairments. In both crude and multivariable models, the s-MoCA-SWE was more strongly associated than the MoCA with cognitive impairment at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both the short and standard versions of the MoCA appear to be effective in identifying individuals likely to experience persistent cognitive issues following a stroke. Considering the limited time available in an acute stroke unit, the short-form version may be more practical. Nevertheless, further prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207