Montreal cognitive assessment as a cognitive outcome measure in progressive supranuclear palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Montreal Cognitive assessment (MoCA) is a well-validated global cognitive screening instrument. Its validity in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) has not been assessed. Objectives To evaluate the MoCA as an outcome measure in PSP clinical trials. Methods Cognitive data from 162 participants in the placebo arm of the Biogen PASSPORT study (NCT03068468) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) and repeated measures correlation. Results There was a significant decline in the MoCA score over time of −1.4 (95% CI −0.84 to −1.97) points over a 48-week period (p < 0.0001). Small but significant changes (p < 0.01) were observed in all MoCA domains except abstraction. The MoCA correlated weakly with the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) over time (rrm = 0.1, p = 0.02) but exhibited a stronger correlation with the PSP Rating Scale (PSPRS) (rrm = −0.25, p < 0.0001). Conclusion The MoCA appears to have limited sensitivity in capturing cognitive decline in PSP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".