ArticleBMC neurology2025
Sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal cognitive assessment using U.S. National alzheimer coordinating centre uniform data set: a retrospective analysis of 16,309 participants.
Article in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should I drink water or wine? Impacts of online nutritional counseling on the alcohol consumption of elderly individuals with mild cognitive impairment : Secondary Data Analysis from the RCT "BrainFit-Nutrition".BMC public health · 2026Trial
- Scenario-Based Serious Game for Screening Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Preliminary Validation Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Enlarged perivascular spaces are associated with more severe microstructural damage in white matter lesions among people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Cognitive Testing in Spanish Older Adults: A Scoping Review.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- NeuroFusion-ViT: A Hybrid CNN-EVA Transformer Model with Cross-Attention Fusion for MRI-Based Alzheimer's Stage Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning for cognitive impairment assessment: integration of clinical and radiomic white matter hyperintensities features.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a clinical nomogram to assess the risk of cognitive impairment in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- An interpretable machine learning screening model for MoCA-defined possible mild cognitive impairment in rural Xinjiang: a preliminary framework for resource-limited primary care.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Observational
- Investigation of Biopesticides for the Pest Control Through Inhibition of the Acetylcholinesterase Purified from Loxostege sticticalis (L.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae).Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Normative study of the Taiwanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in community-dwelling individuals in Taiwan.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurodegenerative diseases (NDDs), like Alzheimer's disease, are characterized by progressive cognitive decline, with limited effective treatments available. Several screening tools are available for diagnosing various types of dementia, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Dementia Rating Scale (DRS).
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of MoCA to determine its suitability as a screening tool.
methodsThis study analyzed data from participants aged 55 and older, recruited from U.S. Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs), using a National Alzheimer Coordinating Center Uniformed Data Set (NACC-UDS). Participants were classified based on patient records into demented and non-demented groups, with the non-demented group further categorized into those with normal cognition and cognitive impairment (CI). This analysis examines the correlation between these classifications and MoCA scores.
resultsThis study utilized an initial dataset of 188,700 participant records from NACC. After applying inclusion criteria, 16,309 participants were included. The participants had complete diagnostic information, clinician-conducted cognitive assessments, and MoCA scores. The participants were categorized into three groups: 7,624 with no cognitive impairment (NoCI), 4,893 with CI, and 3,792 with dementia. This study focused on MoCA scores, revealing significant differences among diagnostic groups. ROC analysis demonstrated the MoCA's strong diagnostic capability, with AUC values significantly above 0.5 (P <.001). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated in at the literature-recommended cutoff scores of 26 and 21, while the optimal cutoff scores were identified as (< 24) for detecting MCI and (< 21) for dementia based on the Youden index in reference to individuals with no cognitive impairment. Although PPV was generally low, the high NPV across comparisons underscores the MoCA's effectiveness in ruling out cognitive impairment.
conclusionThe study confirms MoCA as an effective tool for detecting dementia, showing 83% sensitivity and 82% specificity at a cutoff value of 21. With a high NPV of 94%, MoCA is particularly reliable for ruling out dementia. Its ability to detect MCI is moderate, with a sensitivity of 77.3% at cutoff of 24 among normal population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.