| Literature DB >> 32384591 |
Monia Cabinio1, Federica Rossetto1, Sara Isernia1, Francesca Lea Saibene1, Monica Di Cesare1, Francesca Borgnis1, Stefania Pazzi2, Tommaso Migliazza2, Margherita Alberoni1, Valeria Blasi1, Francesca Baglio1.
Abstract
Due to the lack of pharmacological treatment for dementia, timely detection of subjects at risk can be of seminal importance for preemptive rehabilitation interventions. The aim of the study was to determine the usability of the smart aging serious game (SASG), a virtual reality platform, in assessing the cognitive profile of an amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) population, its validity in discriminating aMCI from healthy controls (HC), and in detecting hippocampal degeneration, a biomarker of clinical progression towards dementia. Thirty-six aMCI and 107 HC subjects were recruited and administered the SASG together with a neuropsychological evaluation. All aMCI and 30 HC subjects performed also an MRI for hippocampal volume measurement. Results showed good usability of the SASG despite the low familiarity with technology in both groups. ROC curve analyses showed similar discriminating abilities for SASG and gold standard tests, and a greater discrimination ability compared to non-specific neuropsychological tests. Finally, linear regression analysis revealed that the SASG outperformed the Montreal cognitive assessment test (MoCA) in the ability to detect neuronal degeneration in the hippocampus on the right side. These data show that SASG is an ecological task, that can be considered a digital biomarker providing objective and clinically meaningful data about the cognitive profile of aMCI subjects.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer disease; MRI; cognitive rehabilitation; computerized assessment; dementia; digital biomarker; hippocampus; mild cognitive impairment; serious game; virtual reality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32384591 PMCID: PMC7290592 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9051355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Group comparison to compare healthy controls (HC) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) groups for demographic variables.
| aMCI | HC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32 | 107 | |
| Age, yrs (mean ± SD) | 76.75 ± 5.31 | 76.47 ± 3.03 | n.s. |
| Gender (M:F) | 17:15 | 54:53 | n.s. # |
| Education, yrs (mean ± SD) | 10.75 ± 3.84 | 10.95 ± 4.09 | n.s. |
| MMSE | 27.65 ± 1.79 | 28.74 ± 1.27 | 0.0027 |
| N-Hipp volume | |||
| Left n-Hipp (mean ± SD) | 0.001710 ± 0.0000 | 0.002055 ± 0.0000 | <0.001 ** [0.22; 0.96] |
| Right n-Hipp (mean ± SD) | 0.001783 ± 0.0000 | 0.002099 ± 0.0000 | <0.001 ** [0.26; 0.99] |
n: number of subjects; yrs: years; SD: standard deviation; M: male; F: female; MMSE: mini mental state examination; N-Hipp volume: normalized hippocampal volume; # Chi-squared Test; ** ANOVA = age and education as covariates and (η2 partial value; observed power).
Frequency of use for technological devices in our sample.
| aMCI | HC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32 | 106 | |
| Frequency of computer use | |||
| Infrequent % ( | 53.12% (17) | 60.38% (64) | n.s. # |
| Frequent (at least once a week) % ( | 46.88% (15) | 39.62% (42) | |
| Frequency of use of a touch screen (last year) | |||
| Never % ( | 62.5% (20) | 72.64% (77) | n.s. # |
| Infrequent % ( | 18.75% (6) | 20.76% (22) | |
| Frequent (at least once a week) % ( | 18.75% (6) | 6.60% (7) |
n: number of subjects; # Chi-squared test; n.s.: not significant.
Neuropsychological evaluation. ES = Equivalent Score. ES = 0 pathological score; ES = 1 borderline range.
| Test | aMCI | HC | Cut-off (ES = 0) | ES = 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32 | 107 | |||
| MoCA (mean ± SD) | 22.26 ± 2.84 | 26.97 ± 2.35 | ≤15.50 | 15.51–18.28 | |
| FCSRT (median, IQ range) | |||||
| IFR adjusted | 19.59 (15.79 to 23.80) | 27.38 (25.38 to 29.42) | ≤19.59 | 19.60–22.53 |
|
| ITR | 36 (33.5 to 36.00) | 36 (36.0 to 36) | <35 | -- |
|
| DFR adjusted | 6.12 (2.67 to 10.16) | 9.67 (8.67 to 10.89) | ≤6.31 | 6.32–7.66 |
|
| DTR | 12 (9.5 to 12.0) | 12 (12 to 12) | <11 | -- |
|
| TMT (median, IQ range) | |||||
| TMT-A | 39 (21.5 to 64.0) | 40 (28.0 to 59.0) | >93 | 93–69 | n.s § |
| TMT-B | 91 (55.0 to 182.75) | 77.5 (49 to 115) | >282 | 282–178 | n.s. § |
n: number of subjects; MoCA: Montreal cognitive assessment—adjusted total scores [46]; FCSRT: free and cued selective reminding test [48]; IFR: immediate free recall; ITR: immediate total recall; DFR: delayed free recall; DTR: delayed total recall; TMT: trail making test [49]; in bold = p-values surviving Bonferroni’s correction (p < 0.007) * One-Way ANOVA; § Mann–Whitney test.
Smart aging serious game (SASG) evaluation, expressed in z-scores. Mann–Whitney test. Effect size (d) and power are also included for each statistic.
| Test | aMCI | HC | Effect Size | Power | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SASG Accuracy Index (AI) | |||||
| Task 1 | −0.96 (−1.60 to −0.31) | 0.12 (−0.31 to 0.55) |
| 1.04 | 0.99 |
| Task 2 | 0.48 (0.10 to 0.74) | 0.23 (−0.28 to 0.68) | 0.040 | 0.33 | 0.36 |
| Task 3 | −0.78 (−0.78 to 0.83) | 0.83 (−0.78 to 0.83) | 0.026 | 0.45 | 0.59 |
| Task 4 | −0.99 (−2.39 to 0.15) | 0.41 (−0.15 to 0.98) |
| 0.94 | 0.99 |
| Task 5 | −1.75 (−2.51 to −0.63) | 0.50 (−0.06 to 0.50) |
| 1.28 | 0.99 |
| SASG Time index (TI) | |||||
| Task 1 | 1.02 (0.72 to 1.53) | −0.06 (−0.70 to 0.65) |
| 1.26 | 0.99 |
| Task 2 | 0.63 (0.28 to 1.40) | −0.01 (−0.57 to 0.50) |
| 0.90 | 0.99 |
| Task 3 | 1.03 (0.69 to 1.46) | −0.19 (−0.78 to 0.77) |
| 1.19 | 0.99 |
| Task 4 | 0.45 (−0.20 to 0.69) | 0.15 (−0.78 to 0.74) | n.s. | 0.34 | 0.37 |
| Task 5 | 1.33 (1.28 to 1.38) | −0.30 (−0.90 to 1.19) |
| 1.81 | 0.99 |
| SASG−Total | −8.29 (−12.04 to −4.90) | 0.84 (−3.07 to 3.71) |
| 1.61 | 0.99 |
SASG-total: smart aging serious game total score; in bold = p-values surviving Bonferroni correction (p < 0.005).
Figure 1ROC curve comparison between smart aging total score and conventional paper-and-pencil test. Little stars indicate the criterion associated to Youden J statistic.
Statistical comparison between the SASG ROC curve and other tests in terms of sensitivity, specificity, AUC, SE and confidence intervals.
| Test | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | SE | 95% CI | Criterion Value (J Index) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SASG-Total | 84.4 | 75.5 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 0.81 to 0.92 | -- | ≤−3.28 (0.60) |
| MoCA (adj) | 71.9 | 90.6 | 0.89 | 0.03 | 0.81 to 0.94 | n.s. | ≤23.44 (0.62) |
| FCSRT – DFR (adj) | 65.6 | 97.2 | 0.76 | 0.06 | 0.67 to 0.83 | n.s. | ≤6.78 (0.63) |
| FCSRT – IFR (adj) | 71.9 | 91.5 | 0.85 | 0.05 | 0.79 to 0.91 | n.s. | ≤22.35 (0.63) |
| TMT-A (adj) | 15.6 | 95.3 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.43 to 0.60 | <0.0001 | ≤14 (0.11) |
| TMT-B (adj) | 40.63 | 84.91 | 0.61 | 0.06 | 0.53 to 0.70 | 0.0001 | >130 (0.25) |
Results have been considered as statistically significant when surviving Bonferroni corrected threshold, p < 0.01. p-value = comparison with SASG-Total. AOC: area under the curve; SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; J: Youden J statistic; SASG-total: smart aging serious game total score; MoCA: Montreal cognitive assessment; FCSRT: free and cued selective reminding test; DFR: delayed free recall; IFR: immediate free recall; TMT: trail making test; adj: adjusted.
Partial correlations between test and normalized hippocampal volume. Age, gender and education have been included as covariates of no interest. Results have been considered as statistically significant when surviving Bonferroni-corrected threshold (p < 0.008).
| Left n-Hipp | Right n-Hipp | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 30 | 30 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.28 | 0.50 | |
|
| n.s. | 0.0076 | |
|
| |||
|
| −0.08 | 0.06 | |
|
| n.s. | n.s. | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.30/0.4673 | 0.39/0.48 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.29/0.24 | 0.15/0.08 |
n-Hipp: normalized hippocampal volume; SASG-total: smart aging serious game total score; Corr: correlation coefficient r; MoCA: Montreal cognitive assessment; FCSRT: free and cued selective reminding test; DFR: delayed free recall; IFR: immediate free recall; TMT: trail making test; n.s.: not significant.