Equivalencia de las formas alternativas del ‘Montreal Cognitive Assessment’ (MoCA) en el cribado del deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores: Una revisión sistemática
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Brief cognitive tests are routinely used to detect objective cognitive impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), developed specifically for the identification of MCI in older adults, is among the most used instruments. MoCA has three versions, which allows to reduce the chances of contaminating repeated assessments with the effect of practice. Our aim was to systematically review the psychometric properties of the alternative forms of the MoCA versions and to analyze their equivalence. Method: searching was carried out in the Web of Science, Medline and PsycINFO databases following the PRISMA guidelines guide for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Subsequently, the quality of the selected articles was evaluated using a form adapted from the COSMIN guide. Results: Eight articles with psychometric information from at least two versions of the instrument were selected. Conclusions: Studies on the equivalence of the MoCA versions are scarce and diverse, which makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions. The available data suggests that the original version includes more difficult items and scores lower, especially when compared to version 7.3 of the instrument.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it