Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:48:33.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

65 Mayo Test Drive raw composite criterion validity: a brief remote self-administered digital cognitive composite shows similar ability to differentiate PET-defined biomarker groups as a global composite from a person-administered neuropsychological battery in cognitively unimpaired individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2023

Nikki H. Stricker*
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Aimee J. Karstens
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Teresa J. Christianson
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
John L. Stricker
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Winnie Z. Fan
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sabrina M. Albertson
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ryan D. Frank
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mary M. Machulda
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Walter K. Kremers
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jason Hassenstab
Affiliation:
Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Julie A. Fields
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jonathan Graff-Radford
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Clifford R. Jack Jr.
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
David S. Knopman
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michelle M. Mielke
Affiliation:
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Ronald C. Petersen
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
*
Correspondence: Nikki H. Stricker, Ph.D., ABPP, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, stricker.nikki@mayo.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web-based multi-device (smartphone, tablet, personal computer) platform optimized for remote self-administered cognitive assessment that includes a computer-adaptive word list memory test (Stricker Learning Span; SLS; Stricker et al., 2022; Stricker et al., in press) and a measure of processing speed (Symbols Test: Wilks et al., 2021). Study aims were to determine criterion validity of MTD by comparing the ability of the MTD raw composite and in-person administered cognitive measures to differentiate biomarkerdefined groups in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum.

Participants and Methods:

Mayo Clinic Study of Aging CU participants (N=319; mean age=71, SD=11, range=37-94; mean education=16, SD=2, range=6-20; 47% female) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (∼0.5 months from in-person visit). Brain amyloid and brain tau PET scans were available within 3 years. Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n=110) or not (A-, n=209), and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n=43) or with no evidence of AD pathology (A-T-, n=181). Primary outcome variables were MTD raw composite (SLS sum of trials + an accuracy-weighted Symbols response time measure), Global-z (average of 9 in-person neuropsychological measures) and an in-person screening measure (Kokmen Short Test of Mental Status, STMS; which is like the MMSE). Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences and Hedge’s G effect sizes were derived, with and without adjusting for demographic variables (age, education, sex).

Results:

Remotely administered MTD raw composite showed comparable to slightly larger effect sizes compared to Global-z. Unadjusted effect sizes for MTD raw composite for differentiating A+ vs. A- and A+T+ vs. A-T- groups, respectively, were -0.57 and -0.84 and effect sizes for Global-z were -0.54 and -0.73 (all p’s<.05). Because biomarker positive groups were significantly older than biomarker negative groups, group differences were attenuated after adjusting for demographic variables, but MTD raw composite remained significant for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.35, p=.007); Global-z did not reach significance for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.19, p=.08). Neither composite reached significance for adjusted analyses for the A+ vs A- comparison (MTD raw composite adjusted effect size= -.22, p=.06; Global-z adjusted effect size= -.08, p=.47). Results were the same for an alternative MTD composite using traditional z-score averaging methods, but the raw score method is preferred for comparability to other screening measures. The STMS screening measure did not differentiate biomarker groups in any analyses (unadjusted and adjusted p’s>.05; d’s -0.23 to 0.05).

Conclusions:

Remotely administered MTD raw composite shows at least similar ability to separate biomarker-defined groups in CU individuals as a Global-z for person-administered measures within a neuropsychological battery, providing evidence of criterion validity. Both the MTD raw composite and Global-z showed greater ability to separate biomarker positive from negative CU groups compared to a typical screening measure (STMS) that was unable to differentiate these groups. MTD may be useful as a screening measure to aid early detection of Alzheimer’s pathological changes.

Type
Poster Session 04: Aging | MCI
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2023