Stricker, John L.

AbstractBackgroundMayo 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), a measure of processing speed/executive functioning (Symbols Test) and a score combining both the memory and processing speed/executive functioning measures (MTD Composite). We aimed to determine the reliability of MTD measures across follow‐up sessions.MethodIndividuals participating in this ancillary study who completed at least two and up to four complete MTD sessions were included, resulting in 1,293 participants (mean age = 70.6, SD = 11.6; mean education = 15.6, SD = 2.3; 48.6% male; 96.9% White; 99.1% non‐Hispanic; 97.1% cognitively unimpaired) from parent studies (see Table 1). MTD raw scores were winsorized at 1% and 99% to minimize the impact of outliers. Test‐retest reliability was assessed using single‐rating, absolute‐agreement, and two‐way mixed ICCs and results are described using descriptives from Koo et al. (2016). ICCs for in‐person‐administered traditional neuropsychological measures are also reported alongside MTD for a subset of participants newly enrolled into the MCSA (to ensure participants were test naïve to both MTD and in‐person tests).ResultReliability was good for the MTD Composite raw [total ICC = 0.78; see Table 2 for session‐to‐session ICCs and 95% CIs], and moderate‐to‐good for the primary outcome variables for each subtest [total ICC = 0.74 for both SLS and Symbols]. Weighting by accuracy negatively impacted reliability of Symbols and the Composite; without this weighting, MTD Composite and Symbols variables showed higher reliability (MTD Composite z total ICC = 0.80; Symbols response time total ICC = 0.84; see Table 2). Alternative methods of defining response time on Symbols showed nearly identical reliability values. SLS sum of trials (primary variable) had subtly higher reliability than separate measures of learning (1‐5 correct, max span) or delay. Reliability of remote MTD and in‐person‐administered measures and select comparisons are provided in Table 3.ConclusionMTD showed moderate to good reliability, similar to in‐person‐administered traditional neuropsychological tests. Future work will examine the effect of demographics, device type, and session interference on reliability.

AbstractBackgroundFew normative data for computerized measures administered in unsupervised remote environments are available. We aimed to determine what variables to include in normative models for remote self‐administered assessments, develop normative data for measures administered through Mayo Test Drive (MTD, a multi‐device remote cognitive assessment platform) and evaluate application of norms.Method1240 adults ages 33‐100 (96% White) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center met normative sample inclusion criteria that included a concordant Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) diagnosis (3 independent raters all diagnosed CU) and CDR = 0 (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Raw test scores were converted to normalized scaled scores. We derived regression‐based normative data that adjusted for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative models are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+ age2). We evaluated whether additional model terms beyond the base model were needed using an a priori cut‐off of 1% variance improvement in adjusted R2 over and above the base model. We examined rates of low test performance defined as performance below ‐1 SD in independent validation samples (n = 167 concordant CU, n = 64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n = 14 dementia). Rates are considered significantly different than expected when 95% confidence intervals (CIs) do not include the expected 14.7% base rate frequency.ResultNo additional potential model terms met our a priori cut‐off for inclusion beyond the base model (see Table 2), including other quadratic and cubic terms or interactions, device type, response input type, potential session interference, and national area deprivation index (ADI available in subset; N = 776). Application of norms showed expected rates of low test performance among CU participants (95% CI includes expected base rate) and significantly greater than expected rates of low test performance for all variables in MCI (e.g., 62.5% for composite) and dementia (e.g., 71.4% for composite; see Table 3).ConclusionTypical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input did not explain enough variance to warrant inclusion in normative models but are important for individual level interpretation. Future work will improve representation of individuals from under‐represented groups.

AbstractBackgroundFew normative data for computerized measures administered in unsupervised remote environments are available. We aimed to determine what variables to include in normative models for remote self‐administered assessments, develop normative data for measures administered through Mayo Test Drive (MTD, a multi‐device remote cognitive assessment platform) and evaluate application of norms.Method1240 adults ages 33‐100 (96% White) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center met normative sample inclusion criteria that included a concordant Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) diagnosis (3 independent raters all diagnosed CU) and CDR = 0 (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Raw test scores were converted to normalized scaled scores. We derived regression‐based normative data that adjusted for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative models are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+ age2). We evaluated whether additional model terms beyond the base model were needed using an a priori cut‐off of 1% variance improvement in adjusted R2 over and above the base model. We examined rates of low test performance defined as performance below ‐1 SD in independent validation samples (n = 167 concordant CU, n = 64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n = 14 dementia). Rates are considered significantly different than expected when 95% confidence intervals (CIs) do not include the expected 14.7% base rate frequency.ResultNo additional potential model terms met our a priori cut‐off for inclusion beyond the base model (see Table 2), including other quadratic and cubic terms or interactions, device type, response input type, potential session interference, and national area deprivation index (ADI available in subset; N = 776). Application of norms showed expected rates of low test performance among CU participants (95% CI includes expected base rate) and significantly greater than expected rates of low test performance for all variables in MCI (e.g., 62.5% for composite) and dementia (e.g., 71.4% for composite; see Table 3).ConclusionTypical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input did not explain enough variance to warrant inclusion in normative models but are important for individual level interpretation. Future work will improve representation of individuals from under‐represented groups.

TPS1647 Background: The majority of patients with primary and secondary central nervous system (CNS) malignancy develop cognitive impairment, fatigue, and mood-related symptoms. Radiotherapy has been shown to contribute to symptom burden often limiting quality of life and functional status. The development of interventions mitigating neurocognitive toxicity requires an accurate assessment of function and symptom burden. Formal neuropsychological evaluation is resource and time intensive, and often challenging to incorporate in routine clinical practice. There is a critical need to accurately assess cognition without causing undue burden to cancer patients while evaluating the efficacy of interventions that can be scaled and implemented at a population level. Methods: To adequately assess the neurocognitive function and related symptoms in patients with CNS malignancy we have designed an open-label decentralized clinical trial that will randomize patients who received intracranial radiation for primary or metastatic brain tumors in a 1:1 allocation to a therapy targeting radiation-related toxicity (metformin shipped to patient home) plus health promotion with a wearable device vs. health promotion with a wearable device alone. Participants will be stratified based on tumor type (glioblastoma vs. other glioma vs. brain metastases vs. meningioma) and age (<70 vs. 70+ years). Participants will be provided a wearable device for monitoring health status. Participants will undergo serial remote cognitive assessments with the Mayo Test Development Through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion platform (Mayo Test Drive). Remote reported symptom collection via patient surveys and remote neurologic examination by telehealth will also be incorporated. Cognitive assessments and symptom surveys will be designed for completion on a smartphone, tablet, or computer device. Health data will be collected from the wearable device, including the number of steps per day and sleep quality/duration. Participants receiving metformin will utilize device apps to report medication adherence and adverse events. Study-related laboratory assessments will be completed remotely and transmitted electronically. This decentralized clinical trial will provide real-world cognitive and quality-of-life data for patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors while providing preliminary data on the effectiveness of device-based health promotion with or without metformin for treating radiation-related cognitive decline. Results gained from this study will guide future trials in neuro-oncology and other fields. This study is expected to open in March 2024.

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.