Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40696367›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2025

A normative calculator for MoCA domain scores: proxy for Z-scores of conventional neuropsychological tests.

Tau Ming Liew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tau Ming LiewDepartment of Psychiatry, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore. liew.tau.ming@singhealth.com.sg.

Funding

National Alzheimer's Coordinating CenterU24AG072122 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI STEPHENS, KARI A · 2021 to 2025
$45.8M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062422 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Katherine P Rankin · 2019 to 2026
$36.9M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062421 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BRADFORD C DICKERSON · 2019 to 2026
$36.5M
UCSD Shiley-Marcos Alzheimer's Disease Research Center P30P30AG062429 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DOUGLAS R GALASKO · 2019 to 2026
$34.9M
Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG062715 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Sanjay Asthana · 2019 to 2026
$34.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062677 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KEJAL KANTARCI · 2019 to 2026
$33.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066514 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Margaret Sewell · 2020 to 2026
$31.0M
Yale Alzheimer Disease Research CenterP30AG066508 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN M STRITTMATTER · 2020 to 2026
$30.2M
Research Education CoreP30AG066462 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PHILIP L DE JAGER · 2020 to 2026
$30.1M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066468 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI C. Elizabeth Shaaban · 2020 to 2026
$29.4M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066507 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Corinne Pettigrew · 2020 to 2026
$29.3M
University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066509 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Amanda D. Boyd · 2020 to 2026
$29.0M
National Medical Research Council HCSAINV23jul-0001, NMRC/CG2/005e/2022-SGH, MOH-SEEDFD22apr-0001NIA NIH HHS P20 AG068024NIA NIH HHS P20 AG068053NIA NIH HHS P20 AG068077NIA NIH HHS P20 AG068082NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062421NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062422NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062429NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062677NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062715NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066444NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066462NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066468NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066506NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066507NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066508NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066509NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066511NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066512NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066514NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066515NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066518NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066519NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066530NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066546NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072931NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072946NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072947NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072958NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072959NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072972NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072973NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072975NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072976NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072977NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072978NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072979NIA NIH HHS R01 AG079280NIA NIH HHS U24 AG072122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTest items in MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) can be used to generate 5 domain scores (i.e. Memory, Language, Attention, Executive and Visuospatial) which have been shown to approximate well-established neuropsychological tests. As neuropsychological tests are known to be affected by age, sex, education, and language of administration, this study derived a regression-based Z-score calculator for MoCA Domain Scores (MDS) that adjusts individual performance for these key confounders; with the intention of improving the clinical utility of MDS as a proxy for conventional neuropsychological tests.

methodsParticipants ≥ 50 years were recruited from Alzheimer's Disease Centers across USA (n = 25,330), and completed MoCA and conventional neuropsychological tests. A subset with normal cognition and global Clinical Dementia Rating of 0 (n = 11,371) was used to derive the Z-score calculator for MDS; while the full sample (n = 25,330) verified the performance of MDS Z-scores in detecting domain-specific impairments (as defined by conventional neuropsychological tests), using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsMDS varied significantly by age, sex, education, and language of administration even among participants with normal cognition. Based on age-, sex-, education-, and language-adjusted Z-scores, the respective AUCs were 91.2% for MoCA-Memory (95%CI 90.7-91.6), 83.6% for MoCA-Language (95%CI 83.0-84.3), 88.7% for MoCA-Attention (95%CI 88.0-89.4), 85.5% for MoCA-Executive (95%CI 84.8-86.1), and 81.0% for MoCA-Visuospatial (95%CI 80.2-81.8). At the commonly-used cut-off of Z-scores ≤ -1.50, all the MDS had specificities of ≥ 80%.

conclusionsMDS Z-scores can be easily computed using the newly-developed Excel-based calculator, and provide a viable alternative when conventional neuropsychological tests are needed but cannot be feasibly administered, such as in non-specialty clinics with large volume of patients at high-risk of cognitive impairment (e.g. primary-care, geriatric, and stroke-prevention clinics), and, with further validation and calibration, plausibly also in other resource-limited healthcare settings (e.g. in lower- and middle-income countries). They can complement neuropsychological tests as part of the systematic evaluation of cognitive impairment, and help reserve neuropsychological tests for patients most likely to benefit from further evaluation.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionMental Status and Dementia TestsNeuropsychological TestsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40696367
PMCPMC12281878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.