MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Normative data of the Spanish version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in older individuals from Peru

2025· article· en· W4410481795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia Bulgarelli, Emilia Gyr, Jose Villanueva, Koni Mejía-Rojas, Claudia Mejía, Renato Paredes, Sheyla Blumen

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia & Neuropsychologia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPolyclinicNormativeGerontologyDementiaPopulationCognitionTest (biology)PsychologyMedicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has proven to be an effective tool for detecting early dementia in older adults. However, in the Latin American region, there are few available norms of the Spanish version. The Peruvian population faces major healthcare barriers to early screening, so it is important to validate this instrument within this population. Objective: To standardise the Spanish version of the MoCA for the older population in Lima, addressing the critical need for culturally and demographically adapted cognitive evaluation tools in Peru. Methods: The test was administered to 338 ambulatory and homebound adults aged 60 to 80 (216 women) from three institutions: San Miguel District Municipality, San José Obrero Polyclinic in Barranco, and EDMECON in Surco. we computed regression-based norms adjusted for age and education. Results: Sex was not a predictor of the total scores of MoCA. Moreover, age (R2=0.12) and education (R2=0.24) significantly influenced cognitive performance, with education being the strongest predictor. A raw score above 18 indicates normal cognitive performance for the total sample. Conclusions: We provided normative data and cutoff scores for older Peruvians, supporting the clinical use of the MoCA in Peru and setting a benchmark for future test standardizations in the region.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia & NeuropsychologiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207