MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406224956 · doi:10.1002/alz.086424

Improvements in Usability of MoCA XpressO, a Self‐administered Digital Cognitive Pre‐screening Tool

2024· article· en· W4406224956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johanna Gruber, Katie Bodenstein, Marion Paquette‐Masson, Murray Gillies, Ziad Nasreddine

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionComputer scienceMedicineCognitive impairmentPsychologyHuman–computer interactionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background XpressO from Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a self‐administered, digital cognitive screening test composed of memory and executive function tasks. Its purpose is to provide a brief pre‐screening of cognition in order to determine whether further cognitive testing is required. A previous validation study comparing the XpressO to the gold standard MoCA test revealed a strong predictive value. However, of the 118 participants recruited, 25% of the participants (n = 30) did not complete the XpressO test due to impaired comprehension (n = 10), requiring assistance (n = 4), skipped or uncompleted tasks (n = 11), and technology difficulties (n = 5). After a qualitative assessment of the users’ experience several improvements were envisioned and implemented in XpressO. This study aims to assess whether these improvements result in a higher completion rate in older adults. Method 15 older adults that were referred to the MoCA Clinic were recruited to participate in this qualitative study. Each performed the XpressO test while being observed. The observers noted when people experienced difficulty and fed this back to the usability engineer for improvements. As a next step, 30 participants will be recruited from the MoCA Clinic in Greenfield Park, Quebec. Eligibility criteria will include: ability to speak English or French, adults aged 50 years or over, at least 6 years of formal education, and completion of a recent MoCA test within 3 months prior to the start of the study. Participants will complete the XpressO followed by the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). The completion rate of XpressO version 1 and version 2 will be compared using a chi‐squared test. To assess whether completion of the XpressO is dependent on MoCA score, an independent t‐test will be used. Result Results from the 30 participants will be available by July 2024. Conclusion The MoCA XpressO is emerging as an important tool in cognitive pre‐screening and facilitating early detection of cognitive impairment. However, barriers to accessibility need to be addressed in order to optimize the useability of the XpressO for the older population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207