MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117309492 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_107045

Staging Alzheimer's disease using the Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST): a crosswalk with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)

2025· article· en· W7117309492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brant Mittler, Ying Wang, Joel I. Reisman, Dan R. Berlowitz, Peter J. Morin, Raymond Zhang, Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared, Q. Zhang, Weiming Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchema crosswalkDiseaseMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionCognitive Assessment SystemFunctional impairmentSeverity of illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST) evaluates functional changes over the course of Alzheimer's disease. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which FAST scores correspond to cognitive disease staging by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. METHOD: Paired MoCA and FAST scores were analyzed in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in the Veteran's Affairs Healthcare System (2020-2024). FAST score stage cut-off means, standard deviations (SD), medians, and ranges were generated. Linear and repeated measures mixed effects analysis was performed adjusting for patient demographics. RESULT: The study sample (N = 405) had a mean age of 77.9 years (95.6% men, 11.1% Black, and 6.2% Hispanic). MoCA cut-offs for Normal, MCI, Mild, Moderate, and Severe AD stages were ≥29, 26,18, 11 and ≤10, respectively. Corresponding mean (SD) and median FAST score cut-offs separating disease stages were: normal (n = 1), 2.0 and 2; MCI (n = 21), 3.3 (1.7) and 3; mild (n = 206), 3.8 (1.5) and 4; moderate (n = 118), 4.8 (1.4) and 5; severe (n = 59), 5.8 (1.0) and 6. FAST tests resulted in score ranges of 1-7 for MCI-moderate stages and 4-7 for severe AD. Of note, more than half the patients (n = 205) scored in the normal/preclinical ranges of FAST (1 or 2); while, only 1 patient scored normal on the MoCA. FAST linear least squares (LS) means were distributed as <3.6, 3.6-<4.0, 4.0-<5.1, 5.1-6.0, >6 for normal, MCI, mild, moderate, and severe stages projected by MoCA cut-offs, respectively (adjusted R-squared=0.25). The LS means from categorical regression were 2.8, 4.2, 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5, normal, MCI, mild, moderate, and severe stages, respectively (adjusted R-squared=0.24). Similarly, LS means from repeated measures analysis found FAST score ranges for normal to severe AD were <3.9, 3.9-<4.2, 4.2-<5.1, 5.1-5.9, and >5.9. CONCLUSION: This study identified FAST score thresholds corresponding to clinical stages from normal to severe AD according to a regressional crosswalk with MoCA. FAST provides a global functional assessment; however, our data suggest that it may underestimate disease severity relative to MoCA. Nonetheless, FAST is widely used in clinical practice, providing an alternative clinical tool for staging disease progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→