The Montreal cognitive assessment: normative data from a large, population-based sample of Chinese healthy adults and validation for detecting vascular cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a valuable tool for detecting cognitive impairment, widely used in many countries. However, there is still a lack of large sample normative data and whose cut-off values for detecting cognitive impairment is considerable controversy. Methods: The assessment conducted in this study utilizes the MoCA scale, specifically employing the Mandarin-8.1 version. This study recruited a total of 3,097 healthy adults aged over 20 years. We performed multiple linear regression analysis, incorporating age, gender, and education level as predictor variables, to examine their associations with the MoCA total score and subdomain scores. Subsequently, we established normative values stratified by age and education level. Finally, we included 242 patients with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) and 137 controls with normal cognition, and determined the optimal cut-off value of VCI through ROC curves. Results: The participants in this study exhibit a balanced gender distribution, with an average age of 54.46 years (SD = 14.38) and an average education period of 9.49 years (SD = 4.61). The study population demonstrates an average MoCA score of 23.25 points (SD = 4.82). The multiple linear regression analysis indicates that MoCA total score is influenced by age and education level, collectively accounting for 46.8% of the total variance. Higher age and lower education level are correlated with lower MoCA total scores. A score of 22 is the optimal cut-off value for diagnosing vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). Conclusion: This study offered normative MoCA values specific to the Chinese adults. Furthermore, this study indicated that a score of 26 may not represent the most optimal cut-off value for VCI. And for detecting VCI, a score of 22 may be a better cut-off value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".