ArticleBMJ open2026
Development and temporal validation of a machine learning model to estimate total MoCA scores from telephone-based items in patients with mild cognitive impairment.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic cognitive monitoring for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial. However, standard assessments like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) require in-person administration due to visual-based items, creating significant accessibility barriers.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and rigorously validate a machine learning model to accurately estimate total MoCA scores using only telephone-based (remote) items and demographic information.
methodsData from three independent MCI cohorts (2022-2024) were used. Data from 2022 to 2023 (N=425) formed the training set; 2024 data (N=356) were the temporal test set. Models were trained to predict the 8-point visual-based score using 37 telephonic/demographic features. Fivefold cross-validation (80% training/20% validation per fold) was performed exclusively on the training set to compare three heterogeneous machine learning models. Random Forest, Linear Regression and XGBoost models were compared. The final score was reconstructed by summing actual telephonic scores with the predicted visual score.
findingsIn the fivefold cross-validation on the training set, the Random Forest model achieved the lowest mean Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE=1.2034) of 1.2034 points (SD=0.0407; 95% CI 1.1528 to 1.2540) for Visual Score prediction, though pairwise differences between models did not reach statistical significance, likely reflecting the limited power of fivefold comparisons. When applied to the 2024 temporal test set, the reconstructed total score showed high concordance with the actual total MoCA score (RMSE=1.29 points; mean absolute error=1.01 points; R
conclusionsOur machine learning model accurately and reliably predicts total 30-point MoCA scores using only telephone-based information. The model demonstrated satisfactory generalisation performance on a temporally separated cohort, supporting its potential clinical applicability pending external validation.
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.