Dhanam, Sreya

AbstractBackgroundFrontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a common young‐onset dementia. Challenges to in‐person FTD evaluations (e.g., behavioral symptoms, disease rarity), highlight the need to develop remote, low‐burden assessment techniques. A growing literature supports passive digital phenotyping for monitoring neurobehavioral change. Thus, we examined the utility of passively collected data from smartphones to detect prodromal or symptomatic FTD compared to that of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a common cognitive screener.Method199 adults enrolled in the ALLFTD Mobile App study (mean age = 53.4 [SD = 15.2]; 58% women) completed up to 6 months of passive smartphone monitoring via the ALLFTD Mobile App. 55% were unimpaired [CDR®+NACC FTLD = 0], 22% had prodromal FTD [CDR®+NACC FTLD = 0.5], and 23% had symptomatic FTD [CDR®+NACC FTLD≥1] with a variety of syndromic presentations. Battery percentage was collected frequently (median interval = 45 min), and total daily battery usage was calculated as a proxy for smartphone use (higher battery usage = more smartphone use). Daily step counts were also passively collected. Logistic regression classified prodromal or symptomatic FTD vs. unimpaired as a function of: MoCA score [Model 1]; 7 passive features characterizing average, inter‐day variability, and changes over time in smartphone use and movement [Model 2]; or passive smartphone features and MoCA [Model 3]. Analyses were repeated excluding participants with symptomatic FTD to detect prodromal FTD vs. unimpaired.ResultThe area under the curves (AUCs) for detecting prodromal or symptomatic FTD (vs. unimpaired) from the MoCA alone [Model 1] and passive smartphone features alone [Model 2] were 0.77 (95%CI: 0.70‐0.85) and 0.77 (95%CI: 0.70‐0.84), respectively. Their combination [Model 3] resulted in a significantly improved AUC of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.80‐0.92) compared to Model 1 (p = 0.001). Significant Model 3 predictors included average daily battery usage (p = 0.02), slopes of change in step count (p = 0.04), and MoCA score (p<0.01). When distinguishing prodromal FTD from unimpaired, passive smartphone features alone (AUC = 0.75) were significantly better than the MoCA alone (AUC = 0.66; p<0.01), and their combination had the largest AUC (0.80).ConclusionResults support the utility of novel passively collected information from smartphones for detecting and monitoring FTD without contributing to assessment burden. With continued validation, passive digital monitoring methodologies have potential to increase access to dementia care.

AbstractBackgroundThere has been a rise in remote cognitive testing for neurodegenerative diseases. The ALLFTD Mobile App is designed to capture clinical features of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) through repeated remote assessment on smartphones. This is a departure from traditional neuropsychological practice in which a single examiner‐led assessment occurs in a controlled setting. When participants complete tasks on their own, those with greater disease severity may be more variable in their performance for a variety of reasons (e.g. greater distractibility, less engagement). Here we study whether intraindividual cognitive variability (IIV) is associated with older age and increasing disease severity.MethodParticipants were 279 (mean age = 54.9) healthy controls and participants with sporadic FTD or from familial FTD kindreds with a range of disease severities based on FTLD Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Global) scores: 0 (n = 132), 0.5 (n = 54), and ≥1 (n = 47). Participants completed three cognitive tasks at least two times across twelve days. Measures included an adaptive memory task and gamified versions of Flanker and Go/no‐go tasks. IIV was operationalized as the standard deviation in performance on each task. Regression analyses investigated the relationship of IIV with CDR®+NACC‐FTLD group, and with age in those without symptoms. Education and gender were included as covariates in all analyses.ResultGreater disease severity (CDR®+NACC‐FTLD) was associated with greater variability on Flanker (p<.001) and Go/No‐go (p = .02) tasks; a positive but non‐significant association was seen with memory testing (p = .16). Post‐hoc comparisons found that those with CDR®+NACC‐FTLD of 0.5 had significantly more IIV on the Flanker task (𝛃 = .39, p = .004) than those with CDR®+NACC‐FTLD’s of 0. Moreover, those with a CDR®+NACC‐FTLD ≥1 had significantly greater IIV on the Flanker (𝛃 = .85, p<.001) and Go/No‐go tasks (𝛃 = .51, p = .007) than those with a CDR®+NACC‐FTLD of 0. In those without symptoms (CDR®+NACC‐FTLD = 0), age was associated with increased IIV on the Flanker (𝛃 = .27, p<.001) and Go/no‐go (𝛃 = .23, p<.001) tasks.ConclusionIncreased IIV, particularly on processing speed/executive functioning tasks, was associated with greater age and greater functional impairment, even in the mildest stages. Future investigations exploring predictors of IIV and the prognostic value of IIV are warranted.