Evaluation of the construct validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) applied to a sample of elderly patients in an outpatient clinic in San Juan de Lurigancho in Lima, Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este proyecto cuyo título es “Evaluación de la validez de constructo de la Evaluación Cognitiva Montreal (MoCA) aplicada a una muestra de adultos mayores de un consultorio externo de San Juan de Lurigancho en Lima, Perú” tiene como objetivo evaluar la validez de constructo aplicada a una población de habla hispana. El estudio es transversal, observatorio, y descriptivo. Para obtener la información se aplicará el instrumento a pacientes mayores de 60 años del consultorio externo de Medicina Interna del Hospital San Juan de Lurigancho, un hospital del Ministerio de Salud en Lima, Perú. El instrumento será aplicado por la investigadora. Se evaluará la consistencia interna de la escala a través de la Fórmula 20 de Kuder-Richardson (KR20) y validez de construcción mediante el análisis factorial. Este estudio es importante porque actualmente hay pocos estudios que apoyan el uso de la Evaluación Cognitiva de Montreal (MoCA) en países de habla hispana. Con este estudio se espera obtener la justificación científica y estadística para utilizar este instrumento en adultos mayores en poblaciones como la peruana.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".