Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for classification of Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy aging

Open access
Roalf, David R., Moberg, Paul J., Xie, Sharon X., Wolk, David A., Moelter, Stephen T., Arnold, Steven E.·2013·Alzheimer's & Dementia
DOI 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the utility and diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a clinical cohort. Methods: Three hundred twenty‐one AD, 126 MCI, and 140 older adults with healthy cognition (HC) were evaluated using the MMSE, the MoCA, a standardized neuropsychologic battery according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD‐NB), and an informant‐based measure of functional impairment, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS). Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut‐off scores were calculated for each measure, and a method for converting MoCA to MMSE scores is presented. Results: The MMSE and MoCA offer reasonably good diagnostic and classification accuracy as compared with the more detailed CERAD‐NB; however, as a brief cognitive screening measure, the MoCA was more sensitive and had higher classification accuracy for differentiating MCI from HC. Complementing the MMSE or the MoCA with the DSRS significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: The findings support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. In addition, we found that overall diagnostic accuracy improves when the MMSE or MoCA is combined with an informant‐based functional measure. Finally, we provide a reliable and easy conversion of MoCA to MMSE scores. However, the need for MCI‐specific measures is still needed to increase the diagnostic specificity between AD and MCI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Roalf, D. R., Moberg, P. J., Xie, S. X., Wolk, D. A., Moelter, S. T., & Arnold, S. E.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-26
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
529-537
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
DOI
10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001
OpenAlex
W2043020182
Cited by
398
References
53
FWCI
7.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for classification of Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy aging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001
The paper
Roalf, D. R., Moberg, P. J., Xie, S. X., Wolk, D. A., Moelter, S. T., & Arnold, S. E. (2013). Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for classification of Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy aging. Alzheimer's & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.