Bruikbaarheid en validiteit van de Nederlandse versie van de Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-D) bij het diagnosticeren van Mild Cognitive Impairment
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
OBJECTIVE: The MoCA is a new screening test to detect Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Purpose of this study is validating the Dutch version (MoCA-D). METHOD: We administered the MoCA-D to healthy control subjects and to elderly with MCI or dementia from a memory disorder outpatient clinic and a geriatric (outpatient) clinic (n = 30, 32, 37 respectively, age > or = 60). Neuropsychological testing was part of the standard procedure for patients to diagnose MCI. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values (positive: PPV and negative: NPV) of the MoCA-D were assessed. RESULTS: A significant effect of group was found on MoCA-D total score (F (2.95) =67.9; p < 0.01). With a cutoff score of < or = 25, sensitivity and specificity to detect MCI in relation to healthy controls were 72% and 73%, respectively. PPV and NPV were 84% and 56%, respectively. With a cut-off score of < or = 20, sensitivity to detect dementia in relation to MCI was 100% for severe dementia and 75% for mild dementia. Specificity for dementia was 81%, PPV 94% and NPV 55%. CONCLUSION: The MoCA-D distinguishes between healthy elderly, MCI patients and dementia patients. However, in this study, insufficient sensitivity and poor specificity were found. For the present, applying a broader and flexible screening procedure in order to detect MCI seems a more useful method than the interpretation of one test result in particular.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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