Considering different Montreal Cognitive Assessment cutoff scores for older adults with asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a greater prevalence of cognitive impairment among ethnic and/or racial minorities, and cognitive impairment is a barrier to asthma self-management (SM) behaviors and outcomes in older adults. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between cognitive impairment, assessed by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and asthma SM behaviors and outcomes in a sample of predominantly Black and Latino participants. In addition, we evaluated whether using two different MoCA cutoff scores influenced the association between cognitive impairment and asthma outcomes. Methods: Baseline cross-sectional data were extracted from a longitudinal study of older adults with asthma (N = 165) ages ≥60 years. Cognition was assessed by using the MoCA. Asthma Control Questionnaire, asthma-related quality of life (AQOL), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence were assessed by using self-report. ICS dosing was collected through chart review and inhaler technique was observed and rated. Results: Using established MoCA cutoff scores of 23 and 26 yielded 45% and 74% cognitive impairment rates, respectively. Cognitive impairment, defined by using the cutoff score of 23, was significantly associated with worse asthma control (p = 0.04) and worse ICS adherence (p = 0.01). With a cutoff score of 26, only AQOL was significantly associated with cognitive impairment (p = 0.03). Race and/or ethnicity moderated the relationship between cognitive impairment and asthma control with a MoCA cutoff score of 23, and between cognitive impairment and AQOL with a MoCA cutoff score of 26. Conclusion: Cognitive impairment in older adults with asthma is associated with important clinical outcomes, but this relationship is influenced by the cutoff score used to define cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".