BACKGROUND: Computerized cognitive assessments may improve Alzheimer's disease (AD) secondary prevention trial efficiency and accuracy. However, they require validation against standard outcomes and relevant biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and validity of the tablet-based Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of cognitive screening data from the A4 study (Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD). SETTING: Multi-center international study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinically normal (CN) older adults (65-85; n=4486). MEASUREMENTS: Participants underwent florbetapir-Positron Emission Tomography for Aβ+/- classification. They completed the C3 and standard paper and pencil measures included in the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC). The C3 combines memory measures sensitive to change over time (Cogstate Brief Battery-One Card Learning) and measures shown to be declining early in AD including pattern separation (Behavioral Pattern Separation Test- Object- Lure Discrimination Index) and associative memory (Face Name Associative Memory Exam- Face-Name Matching). C3 acceptability and completion rates were assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. C3 performance was explored in relation to Aβ+/- groups (n=1323/3163) and PACC. RESULTS: C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete. Rates of incomplete or invalid administrations were extremely low, even in the bottom quartile of cognitive performers (PACC). C3 was moderately correlated with PACC (r=0.39). Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen's d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p<0.001] and at a magnitude comparable to the PACC [d=-0.32 (95%CI: -0.41,-0.23) p<0.001]. Better C3 performance was observed in younger, more educated, and female participants. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials.
BACKGROUND: Computerized cognitive assessments may improve Alzheimer's disease (AD) secondary prevention trial efficiency and accuracy. However, they require validation against standard outcomes and relevant biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and validity of the tablet-based Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of cognitive screening data from the A4 study (Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD). SETTING: Multi-center international study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinically normal (CN) older adults (65-85; n=4486). MEASUREMENTS: Participants underwent florbetapir-Positron Emission Tomography for Aβ+/- classification. They completed the C3 and standard paper and pencil measures included in the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC). The C3 combines memory measures sensitive to change over time (Cogstate Brief Battery-One Card Learning) and measures shown to be declining early in AD including pattern separation (Behavioral Pattern Separation Test- Object- Lure Discrimination Index) and associative memory (Face Name Associative Memory Exam- Face-Name Matching). C3 acceptability and completion rates were assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. C3 performance was explored in relation to Aβ+/- groups (n=1323/3163) and PACC. RESULTS: C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete. Rates of incomplete or invalid administrations were extremely low, even in the bottom quartile of cognitive performers (PACC). C3 was moderately correlated with PACC (r=0.39). Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen's d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p<0.001] and at a magnitude comparable to the PACC [d=-0.32 (95%CI: -0.41,-0.23) p<0.001]. Better C3 performance was observed in younger, more educated, and female participants. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials.
Authors: Michael A Yassa; Joyce W Lacy; Shauna M Stark; Marilyn S Albert; Michela Gallagher; Craig E L Stark Journal: Hippocampus Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 3.899
Authors: Michelle M Mielke; Stephen D Weigand; Heather J Wiste; Prashanthi Vemuri; Mary M Machulda; Davis S Knopman; Val Lowe; Rosebud O Roberts; Kejal Kantarci; Walter A Rocca; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Mary M Machulda; V Shane Pankratz; Teresa J Christianson; Robert J Ivnik; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Ronald C Petersen; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Walter A Rocca; Rosebud O Roberts; Michelle M Mielke; Val J Lowe; David S Knopman; Vernon S Pankratz; Mary M Machulda; Yonas E Geda; Clifford R Jack Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Michael C Donohue; Reisa A Sperling; David P Salmon; Dorene M Rentz; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Michael Weiner; Paul S Aisen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Paul Maruff; Yen Ying Lim; David Darby; Kathryn A Ellis; Robert H Pietrzak; Peter J Snyder; Ashley I Bush; Cassandra Szoeke; Adrian Schembri; David Ames; Colin L Masters Journal: BMC Psychol Date: 2013-12-23
Authors: J Kaye; P Aisen; R Amariglio; R Au; C Ballard; M Carrillo; H Fillit; T Iwatsubo; G Jimenez-Maggiora; S Lovestone; F Natanegara; K Papp; M E Soto; M Weiner; B Vellas Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021
Authors: Aubryn Samaroo; Rebecca E Amariglio; Samantha Burnham; Paige Sparks; Michael Properzi; Aaron P Schultz; Rachel Buckley; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Dorene M Rentz; Kathryn V Papp Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-01-05
Authors: Roos J Jutten; Dorene M Rentz; Jessie F Fu; Danielle V Mayblyum; Rebecca E Amariglio; Rachel F Buckley; Michael J Properzi; Paul Maruff; Craig E Stark; Michael A Yassa; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Kathryn V Papp Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Kathryn V Papp; Aubryn Samaroo; Hsiang-Chin Chou; Rachel Buckley; Olivia R Schneider; Stephanie Hsieh; Daniel Soberanes; Yakeel Quiroz; Michael Properzi; Aaron Schultz; Iván García-Magariño; Gad A Marshall; Jane G Burke; Raya Kumar; Noah Snyder; Keith Johnson; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling; Rebecca E Amariglio Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-09-30
Authors: Jan S Novotný; Juan P Gonzalez-Rivas; Jose R Medina-Inojosa; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez; Yonas E Geda; Gorazd B Stokin Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2021-12-31
Authors: Christopher Fowler; Stephanie R Rainey-Smith; Sabine Bird; Julia Bomke; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda M Brown; Samantha C Burnham; Ashley I Bush; Carolyn Chadunow; Steven Collins; James Doecke; Vincent Doré; Kathryn A Ellis; Lis Evered; Amir Fazlollahi; Jurgen Fripp; Samantha L Gardener; Simon Gibson; Robert Grenfell; Elise Harrison; Richard Head; Liang Jin; Adrian Kamer; Fiona Lamb; Nicola T Lautenschlager; Simon M Laws; Qiao-Xin Li; Lucy Lim; Yen Ying Lim; Andrea Louey; S Lance Macaulay; Lucy Mackintosh; Ralph N Martins; Paul Maruff; Colin L Masters; Simon McBride; Lidija Milicic; Madeline Peretti; Kelly Pertile; Tenielle Porter; Morgan Radler; Alan Rembach; Joanne Robertson; Mark Rodrigues; Christopher C Rowe; Rebecca Rumble; Olivier Salvado; Greg Savage; Brendan Silbert; Magdalene Soh; Hamid R Sohrabi; Kevin Taddei; Tania Taddei; Christine Thai; Brett Trounson; Regan Tyrrell; Michael Vacher; Shiji Varghese; Victor L Villemagne; Michael Weinborn; Michael Woodward; Ying Xia; David Ames Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Rep Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Sanam J Lalani; Anny Reyes; Erik Kaestner; Shauna M Stark; Craig E L Stark; David Lee; Leena Kansal; Jerry J Shih; Christine N Smith; Brianna M Paul; Carrie R McDonald Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.114