Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Comparative methods for determining MoCA, MMSE, and CDR cut‐offs in Alzheimer's disease: insights from the ADNI study
Samir Atiya, Briseis Aschebrook‐Kilfoy, Sreenivas Konda, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring, 2026-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
For MCI, MoCA cut-offs were 24 (three methods) and 25 (Youden's J Index). For CI, MoCA cut-offs were 17 (Youden's J Index) and 18 (others). MMSE (28, 24) and CDR (0.5, 1) cut-offs were consistent. MoCA thresholds vary by method, requiring context-specific selection, while MMSE and CDR cut-offs remain stable.
Key findings
- For MCI, MoCA cut-offs were 24 (three methods) and 25 (Youden's J Index).
- For CI, MoCA cut-offs were 17 (Youden's J Index) and 18 (others).
- MMSE (28, 24) and CDR (0.5, 1) cut-offs were consistent.
- MoCA thresholds vary by method, requiring context-specific selection, while MMSE and CDR cut-offs remain stable.
Why it matters
This study compared different methods for setting MoCA, MMSE and CDR cut-offs in Alzheimer's disease and found that MoCA thresholds varied by method while MMSE and CDR cut-offs stayed stable. It is about diagnostic scoring and does not treat, cure or prevent Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 35/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring: journal h-index 86 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 0 / 4 | Last-listed author Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: h-index 3 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Chicago: institution h-index 1,769 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41797865) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 35 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1002/dad2.70291
- PubMed: 41797865
- Original source →
- Free full text: Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Atiya, S., Aschebrook‐Kilfoy, B., Konda, S., & Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2026). Comparative methods for determining MoCA, MMSE, and CDR cut‐offs in Alzheimer's disease: insights from the ADNI study. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70291
Vancouver
Atiya S, Aschebrook‐Kilfoy B, Konda S, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Comparative methods for determining MoCA, MMSE, and CDR cut‐offs in Alzheimer's disease: insights from the ADNI study. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring. 2026. doi:10.1002/dad2.70291. PMID: 41797865.
BibTeX
@article{atiya2026-41797865,
author = {Atiya, Samir and Aschebrook‐Kilfoy, Briseis and Konda, Sreenivas and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Comparative methods for determining MoCA, MMSE, and CDR cut‐offs in Alzheimer's disease: insights from the ADNI study}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia Diagnosis Assessment \& Disease Monitoring},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.70291},
pmid = {41797865},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70291}
}
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
88 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.