NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundGiven the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD), cognitive screening is important in clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a frequently used screening test in PD to detect mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PD-D). However, the proportion in which the subtests are represented in the MoCA total score does not seem reasonable. We present the development and preliminary evaluation of an empirically based alternative scoring system of the MoCA which aims at increasing the overall diagnostic accuracy.MethodsIn study 1, the MoCA was administered to 40 patients with PD without cognitive impairment (PD-N), PD-MCI, or PD-D, as defined by a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. The new MoCA scoring algorithm was developed by defining Areas under the Curve (AUC) for MoCA subtests in a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and by weighting the subtests according to their sensitivities and specificities. In study 2, an independent sample of 24 PD patients (PD-N, PD-MCI, or PD-D) was tested with the MoCA. In both studies, diagnostic accuracy of the original and the new scoring procedure was calculated.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy increased with the new MoCA scoring algorithm. In study 1, the sensitivity to detect cognitive impairment increased from 62.5% to 92%, while specificity decreased only slightly from 77.7% to 73%; in study 2, sensitivity increased from 68.8% to 81.3%, while specificity stayed stable at 75%.ConclusionThis pilot study demonstrates that the sensitivity of the MoCA can be enhanced substantially by an empirically based weighting procedure and that the proposed scoring algorithm may serve the MoCA's actual purpose as a screening tool in the detection of cognitive dysfunction in PD patients better than the original scoring of the MoCA. Further research with larger sample sizes is necessary to establish efficacy of the alternate scoring system.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.