MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404146270 · doi:10.30978/unj2024-2-3-14

Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for diagnosing of cognitive impairments in neurologist practice (review)

2024· article· en· W4404146270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.O. MYKHAILICHENKO

Bibliographic record

VenueUkrainian Neurological Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPsychologyCognitive Assessment SystemCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely used in clinical practice and in both academic and non-academic research worldwide (available in approximately 100 languages and dialects). It provides the most accurate assessment of cognitive functions and is a reliable method for diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early signs of dementia, including in neurologists’ and general practitioners’ practices. Unlike the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which, at the time of its development, did not aim to diagnose mild cognitive impairment or detect early stages of dementia, the MoCA was specifically designed in 1995 to identify mild cognitive impairment. Studies have shown that the MoCA has greater predictive accuracy compared to the MMSE for diagnosing both mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The test requires only 10 minutes to complete. The MoCA has a stable hierarchical factor structure with a general factor at the top and satisfactory general factor loading with measurement invariance among participants of different ages, education levels, economic statuses, and genders. Vascular cognitive impairments are characterized by deficits in executive functions, which are essential for cognitive processes such as initiation, planning, hypothesis formation, cognitive flexibility, decision-making, regulation, judgment, feedback, and perceptual body awareness. A comprehensive assessment of executive functions can be conducted using the MoCA. Currently, there is no universally accepted classification for the severity of cognitive impairments based on MoCA test results, but most studies use the gradations proposed by the test developers, which include normal cognitive function, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia. This differentiation helps physicians determine the level of impairment and adjust treatment or therapeutic approaches accordingly. As a result, the MoCA is becoming an increasingly popular tool in clinical practice, especially among neurologists, for early diagnosis and monitoring the progression of cognitive impairments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

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 venueUkrainian Neurological JournalSame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207