The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) 8.1 version, including the memory index score (MoCA-MIS): Italian norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We standardized, in Italy, the latest version (i.e., 8.1) of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), including the Memory Index Score (MoCA-MIS), a sensible index of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. METHOD: Six hundred sixty-eight healthy participants took part in the study (age range: 18-99 years, education range: 1-30 years; females: 344). We conducted multiple linear regressions to detect the best predictors (Age, Education, Biological sex, and Cognitive reserve) of participants' performance. RESULTS: The results showed that Age, Education, and, occasionally, Biological sex were significant predictors. In contrast, the contribution of Cognitive reserve did not show a systematic pattern. We provided a spreadsheet to precisely transform Raw scores into Adjusted scores for Age, Education, and Biological sex. Finally, Adjusted scores can be classified into Equivalent scores. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the present standardization of the MoCA (8.1), including the MoCA-MIS, is a useful contribution for the neuropsychological screening of Italian-speaking persons.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".