MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411190087 · doi:10.25259/jnrp_360_2024

Cognitive functional screening with the Indonesian Montreal Cognitive Assessment of farmers exposed to pesticides: A cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4411190087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miftahul Khoiriyah, Nafi Ilhamsyah, Sani Rachman Soleman, Gita Diah Prasasti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianMedicineCross-sectional studyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionEnvironmental healthCognitive impairmentPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Cognitive assessment with the Indonesian Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA Ina) is essential to detect mild cognitive impairment in farmers in Indonesia. This study aims to observe cognitive function with the MoCa Ina in high-exposed and low-exposed areas in Magelang Regency, Central Java, Indonesia. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study is proposed to collect 101 respondents from Pakis District, high-exposed pesticides, and 100 respondents from Mertoyudan District, low-exposed ones. Covariates are baseline demographic and pesticide-use behavior, and dependent variables are exposure level and MoCA Ina components. Statistical analysis uses chi-square and Binary Logistic for categorical data. Independent t -tests, analysis variance, and covariance analysis are used to analyze continuous data. All data are set at <0.05 significance with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25. Results: Elementary school (adjusted odd ratio [AOR] = 0.43; confidence interval [CI] 95% = 0.07, 0.27; P = 0.00) and junior high school (AOR = 0.11; CI 95% = 0.01, 0.74; P = 0.02) are associated with exposure status, as well as MoCA Ina components exclusively visuospatial ( P < 0.001), naming ( P < 0.001), abstraction ( P = 0.00), delayed recall ( P = 0.02), and total MoCA ( P = 0.00). However, after controlling for confounding, only orientation finds its significance (mean difference 0.20, P = 0.04). The mean difference proves that the high-exposed area has a worse score MoCA than the low-exposed pesticide one. Specifically, in highly exposed one, pesticide use behavior, broflanilide pesticide application ( P = 0.02), length of used pesticide ( P = 0.01), and spraying time ( P = 0.00) get their significance. Wearing glass protection contributes to cognitive scoring MoCA Ina components such as naming ( P < 0.001), language ( P = 0.02), abstraction ( P = 0.02), orientation ( P = 0.00), and total MoCA ( P = 0.01). Conclusion: Pesticide exposure contributes to cognitive function. Additional precautions regarding educational background, pesticide-use behavior, and personal protective equipment compliance should be handled.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosciences in Rural PracticeSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207