| Literature DB >> 35095476 |
Roos J Jutten1, Dorene M Rentz1,2, Jessie F Fu3, Danielle V Mayblyum3, Rebecca E Amariglio1,2, Rachel F Buckley1,4, Michael J Properzi1, Paul Maruff5,6, Craig E Stark7, Michael A Yassa7, Keith A Johnson1,3, Reisa A Sperling1,2, Kathryn V Papp1,2.
Abstract
Introduction: We investigated whether monthly assessments of a computerized cognitive composite (C3) could aid in the detection of differences in practice effects (PE) in clinically unimpaired (CU) older adults, and whether diminished PE were associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers and annual cognitive decline. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: computerized testing; digital biomarkers; practice effects; preclinical AD; remote assessment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35095476 PMCID: PMC8792465 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.800126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Baseline characteristics for the overall sample and subsample with in-clinic follow-up after 1 year.
| FU C3 assessments, M (SD) [range] | 11.7 (3.2), [2–15] | 12.8 (1.8), [2–15] |
| N month 0.25/1/2/3 | 101/104/106/104 | 64/68/70/69 |
| Age, M (SD) | 77.6 (5.0) | 77.8 (4.9) |
| Female, n (%) | 70 (67.3%) | 42 (60%) |
| Years of Education, M (SD) | 16.5 (2.7) | 16.3 (2.8) |
| Global CDR, 0/0.50 | 105/9 | 66/6 |
| MMSE score, M (SD) | 29.1 (1.3) | 29.2 (1.2) |
| PACC5 score, M (SD) | 0.22 (0.76) | 0.29 (0.73) |
| PiB-PET years since C3 baseline | −0.99 ± 1.6 | −0.68 ± 1.7 |
| Global cortical amyloid (DVR) | 1.21 ± 0.23 | 1.22 ± 0.25 |
| Aβ status | 81 Aβ−/33 Aβ+ | 50 Aβ−/22 Aβ+ |
| N | 105 | 66 |
| FTP-PET years since C3 baseline | −0.62 ± 1.1 | −0.34 ± 1.2 |
| FTP-PET ET Tau (SUVR, PVC) | 1.38 ± 0.28 | 1.39 ± 0.27 |
| FTP-PET IT Tau (SUVR, PVC) | 1.50 ± 0.18 | 1.50 ± 0.16 |
N.B.
p < 0.001.
C3, Computerized Cognitive Composite; CDR, Clinical Dementia Rating scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; PACC-5, Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite-−5; PET, Positron-emission tomography; PiB, .
Time estimates extracted from linear mixed models corrected for age, sex, and education.
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| C3 | 0.226 | 0.207–0.245 | <0.001 | 0.678 | 0.587–0.768 | <0.001 | 1.39 |
| BPSO | 0.073 | 0.061–0.085 | <0.001 | 0.212 | 0.157–0.268 | <0.001 | 0.71 |
| FNLT | 0.098 | 0.088–0.108 | <0.001 | 0.379 | 0.328–0.429 | <0.001 | 1.37 |
| OCL acc | 0.051 | 0.041–0.060 | <0.001 | 0.072 | 0.020–0.125 | 0.007 | 0.25 |
| ONB acc | 0.034 | 0.023–0.044 | <0.001 | 0.100 | 0.041–0.158 | 0.001 | 0.31 |
| DET rt | −0.024 | −0.036 to −0.012 | <0.001 | −0.051 | −0.103–0.000 | 0.052 | 0.18 |
| IDN rt | −0.009 | −0.020–0.001 | 0.073 | −0.062 | −0.115 to −0.010 | 0.021 | 0.22 |
| OCL rt | −0.032 | −0.044 to −0.021 | <0.001 | −0.141 | −0.188 to −0.095 | <0.001 | 0.55 |
| ONB rt | −0.052 | −0.063 to −0.041 | <0.001 | −0.163 | −0.207 to −0.118 | <0.001 | 0.67 |
N.B. C3 is summed z-score of BPSO + FNLT + OCL. Negative scores on reaction time measures reflect improvement.
C3, Computerized Cognitive Composite (computed as the sum of the BPSO, FNLT, and OCL accuracy z-scores); BPSO, Behavioral Pattern Separation Task—Object Version; FNLT, First Name Letter Test; OCL, One-Card Learning; ONB, One Back; DET, Detection; IDN, Identification; acc, accuracy; rt, reaction time; MSDR, mean to standard deviation ratio.
Figure 1Mean trajectory of C3 performance over monthly visits.
Figure 2Relationship between C3 slopes over 3 months and global amyloid burden (A), tau deposition in the entorhinal cortex (B), and inferior-temporal lobe (C).
Figure 3Association between optimal spatial distribution of tau and C3 slopes over 3 months in the Aβ− group. Left panel (A) shows the correlation between PLS subject scores (expression of spatial patterns of tau distribution) and C3 slopes; right panel (B) presents the spatial patterns of tau distribution of z-transformed PLS weights in each ROI.
Figure 4Association between optimal spatial distribution of tau and BPSO slopes over 3 months in the Aβ− group. Left panel (A) shows the correlation between PLS subject scores (expression of spatial patterns of tau distribution) and BPSO slopes; right panel (B) presents the spatial patterns of tau distribution of z-transformed PLS weights in each ROI.
Figure 5Association between optimal spatial distribution of tau and OCL slopes over 3 months in the Aβ− group. Left panel (A) shows the correlation between PLS subject scores (expression of spatial patterns of tau distribution) and OCL slopes; right panel (B) presents the spatial patterns of tau distribution of z-transformed PLS weights in each ROI.
Figure 6Association between optimal spatial distribution of tau and FNLT slopes over 3 months in the Aβ+ group. Left panel (A) shows the correlation between PLS subject scores (expression of spatial patterns of tau distribution) and FNLT slopes; right panel (B) presents the spatial patterns of tau distribution of z-transformed PLS weights in each ROI.
Figure 7Relationship between C3 slopes over 3 months and annual change scores on the PACC5 (all scores covariate-adjusted).
Figure 8ROC analyses for the identification of >0.10 SD annual decline on the PACC5 (all scores covariate-adjusted).