Is Montreal Cognitive Assessment a valuable test for the differentiation of Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy body, and vascular dementia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is one of the growing diseases in the world and has different types based on its definition. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test has been employed to screen patients with dementia, cognitive impairment, and disruption of daily activities. Objective: This study examined the diagnostic value of the total MoCA score and its subscores in differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), dementia with Lewy body (DLB), and vascular dementia (VaD). Methods: A total of 241 patients (AD=110, FTD=90, DLB=28, and VaD=13) and 59 healthy persons, who were referred to a dementia clinic with memory impairment in Firoozgar Hospital, were included in this study. MoCA tests were performed in all patients and normal persons. Results: By using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and measuring the area under the curve (AUC) for the total MoCA score in each group, AUC was 0.616, 0.681, 0.6117, and 0.583 for differentiating AD, FTD, DLB, and VaD patients, respectively. Among the groups, just the VaD group showed no significant usefulness in using the total MoCA score to differentiate it. To compare MoCA subscores, AD patients had higher scores in digit span, literal fluency, and abstraction but lower delayed recall scores compared with FTD patients. Conclusion: The total MoCA score and its subscores could not differentiate people with different types of dementia in the setting of screening.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".