Validity and Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Brief Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for Discriminating Cognitive Impairment in a Community-Based Middle-Aged and Elderly Population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<0.001),respectively.The brief version showed the AUC,sensitivity,and specificity of 0.889,74.5%,and 93.8% for identifying MCI,and 0.994,100%,and 93.8% for identifying dementia,respectively.When the brief version of MoCA was used to identify 94 patients with MCI in 303 individuals,107 individuals required additional diagnostic assessment,with an overall assessment time of 142.4 h,which represented decreases of 21.3% and 32.7%,respectively,compared with those of the full version.When the brief version of MoCA was used to identify 17 patients with dementia in 303 individuals,35 individuals required additional diagnostic assessment,with an overall assessment time of 70.4 h,a decrease of 29.5% in the time cost compared with the full version.Conclusions The brief version of MoCA can identify cognitively impaired individuals in a community-based middle-aged and elderly population,with diagnostic validity comparable to that of the full version but less time cost and fewer individuals needing additional diagnostic assessment to detect true-positive cases.It could be expanded for use in the community-based primary screening setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".