MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110705302

The difference in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic patients with dementia in the Rio Grande Valley

2025· article· W7110705302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentHyperlipidemiaCognitionDemographicsCognitive declineTest (biology)Disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The relationship between hyperlipidemia (high levels of lipids or cholesterol in the blood) and cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia is not very clear. There is not enough research about this relationship. In fact, it is not very clear if there is a relationship. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test is a tool that detects decline in cognitive impairment for early detection of conditions like Alzheimer’s Disease. This test is used in medical facilities by licensed professionals and providers that assesses cognitive skills like language, attention, concentration, short term and working memory, and self-regulation. Some studies suggest that hyperlipidemia leads to faster cognitive decline in these patients, while others propose that there is no significant relationship between these two topics. Furthermore, a few studies have even suggested that high cholesterol levels have even protected individuals from developing dementia. Because of these discrepancies, this association needs to be further explored. In this study, MoCA scores between patients in the Rio Grande Valley with either hyperlipidemia or low cholesterol will be compared. There will also be comparison regarding these patients’ demographics. Materials & Methods Retrospective study that looked back at patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or dementia over the past 5 years in clinics affiliated with UTRGV Patient charts were looked at to see MoCA scores and co-morbidities (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, complete blood count (CBC) results, and lipid profiles (includes total cholesterol, high-density cholesterol (HDL), low-density cholesterol (LDL), and triglycerides) Collected patient demographics (age, sex, county of residence, ethnicity) to compare severity of disease and MoCA results between different groups à this would tell us if there are any confounding variables or factors that increase severity What is considered hyperlipidemia? Some sources say about 200mg/dL. MoCA scoring system: 18-25 = mild cognitive impairment, 10-17 = moderate, < 10 = severe; average score for Alzheimer’s is 16.2 Discussion: There is a dire need for further study regarding this topic. It is known that diet and one’s microbiome could influence whether an individual eventually develops dementia but there are not many studies with conclusive results that indicate whether there is a relationship between hyperlipidemia and dementia. Also, other tools that screen for cognitive impairment (like the Mini-Mental State Examination) should be included in this discussion so that it can be concluded that there is no other bias introduced into this.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley)Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207