Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 631

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: Validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

Fujiwara, Yoshinori, Suzuki, Hiroyuki, Yasunaga, Masashi, Sugiyama, Mika, Ijuin, Mutsuo, Sakuma, Naoko, Inagaki, Hiroki, Iwasa, Hajime, Ura, Chiaki, Yatomi, Naomi, Ishii, Kenji, Tokumaru, Aya M, Homma, Akira, Nasreddine, Ziad, Shinkai, Shoji·2010·Geriatrics & Gerontology International
DOI 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), developed by Dr Nasreddine (Nasreddine et al. 2005), is a brief cognitive screening tool for detecting older people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We examined the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the MoCA (MoCA‐J) in older Japanese subjects. Methods: Subjects were recruited from the outpatient memory clinic of Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital or community‐based medical health check‐ups in 2008. The MoCA‐J, the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), the revised version of Hasegawa's Dementia Scale (HDS‐R), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, and routine neuropsychological batteries were conducted on 96 older subjects. Mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) was found in 30 subjects and MCI in 30, with 36 normal controls. Results: The Cronbach's alpha of MoCA‐J as an index of internal consistency was 0.74. The test–retest reliability of MoCA, using intraclass correlation coefficient between the scores at baseline survey and follow‐up survey 8 weeks later was 0.88 (P < 0.001). MoCA‐J score was highly correlated with MMSE (r = 0.83, P < 0.001), HDS‐R (r = 0.79, P < 0.001) and CDR (r = −0.79, P < 0.001) scores. The areas under receiver–operator curves (AUC) for predicting MCI and AD groups by the MoCA‐J were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI = 0.00–1.00), respectively. The corresponding values for MMSE and HDS‐R were 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75–0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.00–1.00), and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.76–0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.00–1.00), respectively. Using a cut‐off point of 25/26, the MoCA‐J demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.0% and a specificity of 87.0% in screening MCI. Conclusion: The MoCA‐J could be a useful cognitive test for screening MCI, and could be recommended in a primary clinical setting and for geriatric health screening in the community. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2010; 10: 225–232.

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 · 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 631

Metadata

Authors
Fujiwara, Y., Suzuki, H., Yasunaga, M., Sugiyama, M., Ijuin, M., Sakuma, N., Inagaki, H., Iwasa, H., Ura, C., Yatomi, N., Ishii, K., Tokumaru, A. M., Homma, A., Nasreddine, Z., & Shinkai, S.
Venue
Geriatrics & Gerontology International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06-18
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
225-232
ISSN
  • 1444-1586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-0594
DOI
10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x
OpenAlex
W1600510083
Cited by
631
References
23
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: Validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x
The paper
Fujiwara, Y., Suzuki, H., Yasunaga, M., Sugiyama, M., Ijuin, M., Sakuma, N., Inagaki, H., Iwasa, H., Ura, C., Yatomi, N., Ishii, K., Tokumaru, A. M., Homma, A., Nasreddine, Z., & Shinkai, S. (2010). Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: Validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Geriatrics & Gerontology International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x

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.