MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409548689 · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2025.112756

Equating conversion norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in healthy subjects and patients with neurodegenerative disorders

2025· article· en· W4409548689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Bernini, Elena Ballante, Marta Picascia, Marica Barbieri, Alfredo Costa, Elena Cavallini, Cristina Tassorelli, Tomaso Vecchi, Sara Bottiroli

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Gerontology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistero della Salute
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEquatingCognitionPsychologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentClinical psychologyMental stateMini–Mental State ExaminationMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are globally recognized as validated cognitive screening tests widely used. The present study attempted to provide conversion tables from the MMSE to the MoCA and vice versa, deriving them from a large population of healthy older adults and a representative clinical sample of subjects with different types of cognitive decline within the spectrum of Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's (PD) diseases. A total of 1423 Italian participants, including healthy adults (n = 1203), individuals with AD (n = 93), and with PD (n = 127) were assessed using the MMSE and MoCA. Conversion tables were developed using log-linear smoothing equipercentile equating (LSEE). The reliability of the conversion was assessed through the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in a train-test approach confirmed in the whole sample. The findings demonstrated that the LSEE method enables the development of conversion tables allowing users to identify the corresponding MoCA score for each MMSE score within the studied groups, and vice versa. The estimation error RMSE was 1.8, 2.9, and 3.2 for the conversion of MoCA from MMSE and 1.2, 2.3, and 2.2 for the conversion of MMSE from MoCA in healthy subjects, AD, and PD, respectively. The reliability of the conversion is higher in healthy subjects and for higher values of MoCA and MMSE. Results report easy-to-use conversion norms for transforming raw MMSE score to MoCA and vice versa, highlighting areas were the conversion has a strong or low reliability depending on the score range. • Screening tests as useful tools for rapid assessment of overall cognitive function • Conversion MMSE/MoCA tables for Italian healthy and neurodegenerative aging • Availability of normative data on the characteristics of disease specific population • Conversion tables address inter-study variability between MMSE and MoCA scores. • Need of longitudinal cognitive monitoring if using different screening tools

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental GerontologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207