The validity of computerized Montreal cognitive assessment among aging people living with HIV: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the population of aging people living with HIV (PWH) increases, many have faced neurocognitive problems. Cognitive assessment plays a crucial role as the initial step in cognitive care of this specific population. We aimed to determine the validity between a traditional paper-based and tablet-based cognitive assessment tool among aging Thai PWH. METHODS: PWH aged ≥ 50 years underwent cognitive assessment using the Thai-validated Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the paper-based MoCA or the tablet-based MoCA (eMoCA) first. Two weeks later, participants returned to complete the alternate version of the MoCA. Pearson correlation was used to determine the strength of the relationship between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA scores. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated, and a Bland-Altman plot was employed to determine the level of agreement between the two testing methods. Additionally, MoCA scores were compared between individuals with and without prior touchscreen tablet experience. RESULTS: Among 46 participants included in the analysis, 12 (26.1%) had experience using a touchscreen tablet. The score discrepancy between the two MoCA versions ranged from - 8 to 6, with a mean (SD) difference of -1.33 (3.22). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA was r = 0.54 (p = 0.001), with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.47. The Bland-Altman plot showed 95% limits of agreement between - 7.63 and 4.98. Among participants with prior touchscreen tablet experience, scores between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA were comparable. However, those without prior touchscreen experience had significantly lower scores on the eMoCA compared to the paper-based MoCA (mean difference - 1.56, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.40). CONCLUSIONS: The eMoCA demonstrated moderate correlation with the paper-based MoCA, with prior touchscreen tablet experience significantly affecting the validity of the MoCA scores between the two versions. Clinicians should consider individuals' level of touchscreen experience before selecting the administration modality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".