The use of the MoCA in cognitive impairment for older patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundCognitive Impairment (CI) represents an important extra-pulmonary feature of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), in which its prevalence remains under-recognised. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a validated screening test for detecting CI.ObjectivesThe use of the MoCA in clinically stable COPD in routine practice. Secondary aim: CI prevalence in COPD.DesignFeasibility study.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were collected in 30 COPD patients, aged ≥65 years, at the Outpatient Department in Modena (Italy).ResultsThe MoCA administration was on average 11 min. Patient feedback was positive. The COPD participants (mean age 75 years) viewed the test favourably and felt that understanding more about cognitive function would help improve their care. The median MoCA score was 23 with 10% of patients had moderate CI. The prevalence of CI was 84%.ConclusionThe MoCA is not time-consuming and should be incorporated in daily routine to identify CI in COPD, in which the prevalence of mild CI remains high. Results warrant further studies in larger populations to confirm feasibility in clinical practice.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".