MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411863052 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.30.25330565

Predicting neuropsychological testing outcomes and research clinic diagnosis of MCI and dementia in Parkinson’s disease using the MoCA

2025· preprint· en· W4411863052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanja Zerenner, Sanjay Manohar, Jamil Razzaque, Falah Al Hajraf, Karolien Groenewald, Ludo van Hillegondsberg, Tamir Eisenstein, Johannes Klein, Yoav Ben‐Shlomo, Michael Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentParkinson's diseaseDementiaSelection (genetic algorithm)CognitionDiseaseGerontologyMedicineCognitive impairmentPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is frequently used in cohort studies in Parkinson’s disease (PD) as a simple and quick tool for assessing global cognitive abilities of patients. However, cut-off values for distinguishing between normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia differ across the literature. We comprehensively evaluate the accuracy of the MoCA for patient stratification and whether it can improved by including additional routinely collected information. Methods We use longitudinal data from PD and healthy control (HC) participants of the PPMI cohort which – in addition to the MoCA – conducts detailed neuropsychological testing and records diagnoses of MCI and dementia made at the research clinics. Multilevel logistic regression was used to predict (1) impairment in detailed neuropsychological testing and (2) clinician diagnoses from the MoCA in conjunction with other routinely collected information on basic demographics or functional impairment as recorded in MDS-UPDRS 1.1. Model performance was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Optimal cut-offs for patient stratification were derived according to Youden’s J, common screening and diagnosis criteria, and an equal proportions criterion, that is, the cutoff at which the proportion of observations with the outcome equals the proportion of observations below cutoff. Results We analysed data from 1,094 PD patients and of 267 HC. Education-adjusted MoCA scores predicted impairment in 2 or more domains with an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.84, 0.88). Youden’s J was maximized at cutoff ≤ 24 with sensitivity 74.7 (70.5, 79.3) and specificity 83.1 (82.0, 84.2); cutoff ≤ 21 equated proportions. The MDS-UPDRS 1.1 was a better predictor of research clinic diagnosis of PD-MCI or PDD than the MoCA. A combination of MDS-UPDRS 1.1 and education adjusted MoCA discriminated diagnosis of any impairment from no impairment with an AUC of 0.87 and dementia from no dementia with an AUC of 0.96. Discussion Optimal MoCA cutoffs for PD-MCI or PDD depend on their purpose. For post-hoc stratification for research purposes, we recommend considering a cutoff that equates proportions. Identifying suitable cutoffs from the literature - for research or in clinic use - needs to take into account the respective PD 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venuemedRxiv→Same topicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research→French-language works237,207→