Karstens, Aimee J.

AbstractBackgroundEasily accessible and self‐administered cognitive assessments that can aide early identification of individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia are critical for timely intervention. Mayo Test Drive (MTD) is a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible, web‐based cognitive assessment (Stricker et al., 2022). We investigated continuous associations between MTD and amyloid and tau PET biomarkers and compared the strength of association to PET biomarkers and in‐person cognitive measures.Method556 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participated (mean age = 70.6; mean education = 16.0 years; 50.7% female; 97.5% white). Participants were predominantly cognitively unimpaired (95.3%; 4.7% had a consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment). Participants completed (1) brain amyloid and tau PET scans, (2) in‐person neuropsychological assessment including Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite (Mayo‐PACC) and Global‐z, and (3) remote MTD comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and the Symbols test, which are combined into an MTD composite. Multiple regressions adjusted for age, sex, and education queried associations between imaging biomarkers [amyloid meta‐region of interest (ROI), tau meta‐ROI, and tau entorhinal cortex (EC)‐ROI)] and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites.ResultLower performances on MTD composite and Mayo‐PACC were associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p’s<.05; Table 1). MTD composite was also negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI and EC‐ROI (p’s<.05). For memory measures, SLS sum of trials was negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI (p = .01) and EC‐ROI (p<.001) with no associations between AVLT sum of trials and PET (p’s≥.06; Table 2). Among processing speed/executive function measures, worse Trails B performance was associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p<.001). Symbols and Digit Symbol Coding were not associated with PET (p’s≥.29). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly less variance (p = .04) for amyloid meta‐ROI (adjusted R‐squared = 0.165) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.176); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05).ConclusionMTD is associated with continuous measures of amyloid and tau PET biomarkers of AD, demonstrating criterion validity for MTD. Several associations were comparable to relationships between gold‐standard in‐person neuropsychological tests and imaging biomarkers.

AbstractBackgroundBrief self‐administered cognitive assessments deployed remotely and combined with plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are well suited to assess clinical symptoms and underlying biology in large‐scale decentralized studies. We investigated whether associations of self‐administered cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers were comparable to associations of in‐person cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers.MethodParticipants included 327 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (mean age = 70.8; 48% female; mean education = 16.0 years; 96.9% white). Most (94.5%) were cognitively unimpaired; 5.5% had consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Participants completed Mayo Test Drive (MTD; Stricker et al., 2022), a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible web‐based cognitive assessment comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and Symbols test that are combined into a MTD composite. Participants also completed in‐person neuropsychological assessment (global‐z; Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite [Mayo‐PACC]) and fasting venipuncture. Plasma was assayed via HD‐X simoa platform for amyloid‐beta (Aβ)‐42 and Aβ‐40 to create an Aβ42/40 ratio, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) using the N4PE Quanterix kit as well as phosphorylated‐tau protein 181 (p‐tau181). P‐tau181, GFAP, and NfL were log10‐transformed. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and education examined associations between plasma biomarkers and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites.ResultLower performances on MTD, global‐z, and Mayo‐PACC (Table 1) were associated with higher GFAP (p’s≤.02), NfL (p’s≤.003), and p‐tau181 (p’s = .04). For memory, worse SLS and AVLT sum of trials were associated with higher GFAP (p’s≤.01) and NfL (p’s≤.03). For processing speed/executive function, worse Symbols and Trails B were associated with higher p‐tau181 (p’s≤.02). Worse Trails B and Digit Symbol Coding were associated with higher NfL (p’s≤.02), and worse Digit Symbol Coding was associated with lower Aβ42/40 (p = 0.03; Table 2). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly more variance (p = .04) for NfL (adjusted R‐squared = 0.461) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.447); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05).ConclusionRemote and in‐person composite measures showed comparable associations with AD‐related plasma biomarkers, supporting MTD’s criterion validity.

Abstract Background Easily accessible and self‐administered cognitive assessments that can aide early identification of individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia are critical for timely intervention. Mayo Test Drive (MTD) is a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible, web‐based cognitive assessment (Stricker et al., 2022). We investigated continuous associations between MTD and amyloid and tau PET biomarkers and compared the strength of association to PET biomarkers and in‐person cognitive measures. Method 556 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participated (mean age = 70.6; mean education = 16.0 years; 50.7% female; 97.5% white). Participants were predominantly cognitively unimpaired (95.3%; 4.7% had a consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment). Participants completed (1) brain amyloid and tau PET scans, (2) in‐person neuropsychological assessment including Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite (Mayo‐PACC) and Global‐z, and (3) remote MTD comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and the Symbols test, which are combined into an MTD composite. Multiple regressions adjusted for age, sex, and education queried associations between imaging biomarkers [amyloid meta‐region of interest (ROI), tau meta‐ROI, and tau entorhinal cortex (EC)‐ROI)] and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites. Result Lower performances on MTD composite and Mayo‐PACC were associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p’s<.05; Table 1). MTD composite was also negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI and EC‐ROI (p’s<.05). For memory measures, SLS sum of trials was negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI (p = .01) and EC‐ROI (p<.001) with no associations between AVLT sum of trials and PET (p’s = .06; Table 2). Among processing speed/executive function measures, worse Trails B performance was associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p<.001). Symbols and Digit Symbol Coding were not associated with PET (p’s = .29). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly less variance (p = .04) for amyloid meta‐ROI (adjusted R‐squared = 0.165) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.176); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05). Conclusion MTD is associated with continuous measures of amyloid and tau PET biomarkers of AD, demonstrating criterion validity for MTD. Several associations were comparable to relationships between gold‐standard in‐person neuropsychological tests and imaging biomarkers.

Abstract Background Brief self‐administered cognitive assessments deployed remotely and combined with plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are well suited to assess clinical symptoms and underlying biology in large‐scale decentralized studies. We investigated whether associations of self‐administered cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers were comparable to associations of in‐person cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers. Method Participants included 327 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (mean age = 70.8; 48% female; mean education = 16.0 years; 96.9% white). Most (94.5%) were cognitively unimpaired; 5.5% had consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Participants completed Mayo Test Drive (MTD; Stricker et al., 2022), a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible web‐based cognitive assessment comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and Symbols test that are combined into a MTD composite. Participants also completed in‐person neuropsychological assessment (global‐z; Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite [Mayo‐PACC]) and fasting venipuncture. Plasma was assayed via HD‐X simoa platform for amyloid‐beta (Aß)‐42 and Aß‐40 to create an Aß42/40 ratio, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) using the N4PE Quanterix kit as well as phosphorylated‐tau protein 181 (p‐tau181). P‐tau181, GFAP, and NfL were log10‐transformed. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and education examined associations between plasma biomarkers and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites. Result Lower performances on MTD, global‐z, and Mayo‐PACC (Table 1) were associated with higher GFAP (p’s = .02), NfL (p’s = .003), and p‐tau181 (p’s = .04). For memory, worse SLS and AVLT sum of trials were associated with higher GFAP (p’s = .01) and NfL (p’s = .03). For processing speed/executive function, worse Symbols and Trails B were associated with higher p‐tau181 (p’s = .02). Worse Trails B and Digit Symbol Coding were associated with higher NfL (p’s = .02), and worse Digit Symbol Coding was associated with lower Aß42/40 (p = 0.03; Table 2). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly more variance (p = .04) for NfL (adjusted R‐squared = 0.461) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.447); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05). Conclusion Remote and in‐person composite measures showed comparable associations with AD‐related plasma biomarkers, supporting MTD’s criterion validity.

AbstractBackgroundPreclinical Alzheimer’s cognitive composites (PACC) are designed to detect subtle cognitive changes in clinical trials. PACCs often include measures of memory, attention, and semantic fluency, with variations based on available measures. We created a Mayo Clinic PACC (Mayo‐PACC) to address limitations of existing PACCs by prioritizing parsimony, non‐proprietary measures, clinical applicability, and psychometric properties. We developed a Mayo‐PACC and examined sensitivity to detecting longitudinal cognitive change in amyloid positive (A+) older adults relative to the Preclinical Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite‐Revised (PACC‐R). Exploratory analyses included comparison to other composites.MethodParticipants included 614 individuals in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (428 A‐ and 186 A+) age 65‐85 who were cognitively unimpaired at baseline with 7 years mean follow‐up. A+ was defined as PiB‐PET meta‐ROI SUVR ≥ 1.48 (centiloid 22). The Mayo‐PACC included the AVLT sum of trials (trials 1‐5, short delay, long delay), Trails B and Animal fluency. Measures included in the PACC‐R and other comparison composites are listed in Table 1. We calculated study‐specific z‐scores and examined psychometric properties of component measures including test‐retest reliability, practice effects, and distributional properties (ceiling/floor effects, skew, kurtosis). We examined sensitivity to preclinical cognitive change using slope estimates (difference in annualized change across A+ and A‐ groups) from linear mixed models (LMMs) for each composite. A jackknife procedure was used to calculate the standard error and subsequent confidence intervals of differences in rates of change (A+>A‐ indicating more significant decline in A+). Significance was determined based on whether the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) contained 0 (alpha = .05).ResultAll composites showed sensitivity to amyloid‐related longitudinal cognitive decline (A+>A‐ annualized change p<.05; see Table 2). Jack‐knife comparisons revealed comparable utility of Mayo‐PACC and PACC‐R (CI contained 0, see Table 3). Exploratory analyses revealed Mayo‐PACC performed similarly to an adaptation of the ADCS‐PACC, Global‐z, Memory‐z and Attention‐z. The Mayo‐PACC performed better than a 2‐measure Mayo‐PACC‐remote and a single memory measure.ConclusionThe Mayo‐PACC provides a parsimonious composite score that has comparable utility for detecting A+>A‐ cognitive decline compared to the PACC‐R and other composites and can be widely used in both research and clinical settings.

Abstract Introduction We aimed to define a Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer's disease Cognitive Composite (Mayo‐PACC) that prioritizes parsimony and use of public domain measures to facilitate clinical translation. Methods Cognitively unimpaired participants aged 65 to 85 at baseline with amyloid PET imaging were included, yielding 428 amyloid negative (A‐) and 186 amyloid positive (A+) individuals with 7 years mean follow‐up. Sensitivity to amyloid‐related cognitive decline was examined using slope estimates derived from linear mixed models (difference in annualized change across A+ and A‐ groups). We compared differences in rates of change between Mayo‐PACC and other composites (A+ > A‐ indicating more significant decline in A+). Results All composites showed sensitivity to amyloid‐related longitudinal cognitive decline (A+ > A‐ annualized change p < 0.05). Comparisons revealed that Mayo‐PACC (AVLT sum of trials 1‐5+6+delay, Trails B, animal fluency) showed comparable longitudinal sensitivity to other composites. Discussion Mayo‐PACC performs similarly to other composites and can be directly translated to the clinic.

AbstractBackgroundMayo Test Drive (MTD): Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web‐based platform optimized for remote self‐administered assessment that includes a computer adaptive word list memory test (Stricker Learning Span; SLS) and a measure of processing speed (Symbols Test). Study aims were to determine 1) convergent validity of MTD through correlations with in‐person neuropsychological measures and 2) criterion validity of MTD by qualitatively comparing the ability of Mayo Test Drive and in‐person administered neuropsychological measures to differentiate biomarker‐defined groups, independent of clinical diagnosis.MethodsMayo Clinic Study of Aging participants (N = 282) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (mean age = 74, SD = 12; 262 CU and 20 MCI per consensus conference diagnosis; see Table 1). A subset of participants had brain amyloid and/or brain tau PET scans available within 3 years; overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n = 31) or not (A‐, n = 57) and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n = 19) or without any AD biomarkers (A‐T‐, n = 47). Primary outcome variables were SLS sum of trials, AVLT sum of trials, SYM Correct Trials response time, Digit Symbol Coding, MTD composite and Mayo‐PACC (AVLT sum of trials, Trails B, animals). Bivariate correlations were performed across all participants. Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences; Hedge’s g effect sizes are reported.ResultsConvergent validity was supported through significant correlation (p’s < .001) of SLS and AVLT (r = .63), SYM and Coding (r = ‐.64), and MTD composite with Mayo‐PACC (r = .67); see Table 2. MTD subtests showed expected relationships with age and education (p’s < .05; Table 3). All MTD performances were significantly lower for A+ and A+T+ participants relative to A‐ or A‐T‐ (p’s<.001; Table 4). All MTD outcome measures showed a similar or greater group difference effect size relative to traditional in‐person administered neuropsychological measures for separating A+ vs. A‐ and A+T+ vs. A‐T‐ groups. See Figure 1 and Table 4.ConclusionsMTD subtests show evidence of convergent validity through strong correlations with traditional in‐person cognitive measures. Preliminary analyses suggest MTD has promise for differentiating PET biomarker groups.

AbstractBackgroundRemote assessment tools offer significant promise for aiding early detection of cognitive impairment. Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web‐based platform for remote self‐administered assessment that includes a computer adaptive word list memory test (Stricker Learning Span; SLS) and a measure of processing speed (Symbols Test). We examined the diagnostic accuracy of the SLS and a MTD composite (SLS max span, SLS trials 1–5 total correct, SLS delay correct, [Symbols correct item response time*‐1]) for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). We also explored diagnostic accuracy for a broader group that included individuals with possible MCI (pMCI; see Figure 1).MethodsParticipants were recruited from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging for this ancillary remote study. 226 were cognitively unimpaired (CU; concordant CU diagnosis by 3 independent raters). Fifty‐six participants had possible MCI (at least 1 of 3 raters indicated MCI) and 16 had a consensus diagnosis of aMCI. Primary outcome variables were SLS sum of trials, AVLT sum of trials, Symbols correct items response time, and MTD composite. Mean difference analyses used linear model ANOVAs (alpha = .05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were applied; we derived optimal cutoff scores based on the Youden index method.ResultsBoth aMCI and possible MCI groups showed significantly lower performance than the CU group on SLS (Hedge’s g aMCI = ‐1.72, pMCI = ‐1.04), Symbols (Hedge’s g aMCI = 1.38, pMCI = 0.64), and MTD composite (Hedge’s g aMCI = ‐1.89, pMCI = ‐1.09); see Tables 1 and 2 (all p‘s<.01 even when additionally covarying age, education, sex). Total area under the curve was high for differentiating of CU vs. aMCI (MTD Composite = 0.91, SLS = 0.91) and acceptable for CU vs. pMCI (MTD Composite = 0.77, SLS = 0.77); see Table 2. Consistent with our flexible platform, a variety of device types were used to complete remote testing (32% smartphone, 12% tablet, 56% PC).ConclusionsMTD and the SLS show high diagnostic accuracy for aMCI. MTD is a flexible, brief, and easy‐to‐use remote cognitive assessment tool with great potential for scalable use in future studies seeking to maximize inclusion of individuals with aMCI in clinical trials or for cognitive screening in clinical settings.