Maruff, Paul

Abstract BACKGROUND Remote, smartphone‐based cognitive testing may improve access to cognitive assessments for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of unsupervised smartphone‐based cognitive tests in a registry‐based cohort. METHODS Adults without a record of cognitive impairment ( N = 1815; ages 18–92) were recruited from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Brain Health Registry to complete three unsupervised smartphone cognitive testing sessions within 2 weeks. Reliability was assessed with correlations between sessions. Linear regression models tested associations of smartphone tasks with demographics, self‐ and informant‐rated cognitive concerns, and web‐based cognitive testing (Cogstate Brief Battery). RESULTS Adherence was high (82.2%) and usability favorable. Test–retest reliability was moderate to strong ( ρ ’s = 0.61–0.85, all p ’s < 0.001). Lower smartphone scores were associated with older age, lower education, cognitive concerns, and worse Cogstate performance. DISCUSSION Findings support the feasibility, reliability, and validity of remote digital assessments in adults without a record of cognitive impairment.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Remote neuropsychological testing can monitor brain health in individuals with or at risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We evaluated acceptability and validity of the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) for remote administration. METHODS Non‐demented adults from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) completed the CBB in‐clinic under supervision, then remotely every six months, with annual in‐clinic reassessments. Groups included cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults with normal amyloid (CU Aβ−) or elevated amyloid (CU Aβ+), and individuals with mild cognitive impairment with or without amyloid (MCI Aβ+, MCI Aβ−). Performance was compared across contexts and longitudinal changes were examined. RESULTS At baseline, MCI Aβ+ participants performed worse than CU Aβ−. CBB performance was similar across contexts, with consistent group differences. Over time, MCI Aβ+ participants showed greater decline on remote CBB measures than CU Aβ− adults. DISCUSSION Remote unsupervised CBB assessments are valid, reliable, and sensitive to AD‐related cognitive impairment.

Abstract Advances in biomarker technology, digital cognitive assessments, and amyloid‐targeting therapies have redefined the opportunities for accurate and early diagnosis and care of Alzheimer's disease (AD). These advances also create new possibilities for intervention before the onset of cognitive impairment. This paradigm shift has increased the focus on Stages 1 and 2 of AD, in which individuals are cognitively unimpaired but exhibit biological evidence of disease. While early identification of AD offers an opportunity to intervene early to delay progression and preserve quality of life, it also presents complex challenges related to communicating diagnostic results to patients and their families, contextualizing the cost effectiveness of early diagnosis and treatment, and implementation of and equitable access to treatments. Recent, successfully enrolled, preclinical AD trials highlight the complex strategies required to identify asymptomatic, biomarker‐positive individuals on a large scale, and demonstrate critical knowledge gaps in inclusion, follow‐up, and long‐term outcome measurement. The Spring 2025 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meeting brought together academics, clinicians, industry, and regulatory leaders to exchange perspectives on current challenges, key learnings, and potential strategies for identifying and treating individuals in very early stages of AD, effectively and safely. This paper presents key takeaways from the Spring 2025 AARR meeting. Highlights New criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) enable early identification of AD pathology. Blood tests and digital cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early and personalized care. Plasma biomarkers may be scalable in clinical settings but need confirmation or follow‐up assessments in those individuals with equivocal results. Early therapy shows best results in people with lower initial amyloid and tau burden.

Background: Cognitive change is an important factor in understanding dementia. Estimating effects of exposures on cognitive change requires choosing an analytical timescale, typically time on study or current age. There is limited consensus regarding timescale choice in epidemiologic cognitive aging research. Methods: Using a coordinated analytic approach in 10 cohorts of older adults, we evaluated whether estimated effects of two exposures on memory change differed depending on timescale (time on study or current age). We modeled effects of apolipoprotein-E (APOE) ε4 genotype (a time-invariant exposure) and diabetes (a potentially time-varying/acquired exposure evaluated at baseline) using mixed-effects models with linear and nonlinear time specifications for both timescales. Results: Among APOE ε4 carriers, model-estimated memory scores at baseline (time on study timescale) or at each cohort’s median baseline age (current age timescale) were lower, and the average rate of decline was faster than among APOE ε4 noncarriers. Model-estimated memory scores at baseline or at median baseline age were generally similar across baseline diabetes status, with variability across cohorts in the diabetes-memory change association. In some cohorts, trends in diabetes-memory change associations differed in direction across timescales. Conclusions: Timescale was largely inconsequential for estimated effects of APOE genotype, but yielded differences in estimated diabetes effects, raising questions about the appropriate scale. The current age scale may be problematic because diabetes was measured heterogeneously in age across individuals, a common issue in aging cohorts. Our work demonstrates approaches to evaluate alternative timescales, including in multicohort analyses, and highlights potential implications for estimated exposure effects on cognitive change.

AbstractBackgroundThe residual approach has found wide application in researching cognitive resilience, a phenomenon conceptually understood as cognitive performance being better‐than‐typical for an individual, despite apparent AD pathology. The standard residual approach extracts information about an individual’s resilience from the residuals of a linear model predicting cognition. This approach is subject to several limiting assumptions. Here, we explore the implications of these assumptions and propose an alternative predictive modeling approach which circumvents them.MethodsOur alternative approach relies on training a machine learning model on a sample of participants who follow a “typical” clinical progression (Fig. 1A). Residuals are then extracted for a heterogeneous dataset that potentially includes resilient participants by comparing observed cognitive outcomes to those predicted by the “typical” model (Fig. 1B). Additionally, our estimate can be refined by effectively estimating and removing model error from the extracted residual by leveraging a second predictive model (Fig. 1C). Using simulated data, we explore the assumptions made by the standard approach and the consequences of their violation. We then contrast this against our approach.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated that the standard residual approach only extracted accurate resilience estimates if the predictors used in the model explained cognition sufficiently well, while being unrelated to resilience itself. That is, as the predictors explain more of the resilience, the residuals became increasingly determined by model error (Fig. 2). We found that residuals achieved with our approach are more precise and provide individualized estimates that are unaffected by the aforementioned trade‐off (Fig. 3).ConclusionsOur approach holds several advantages over the standard approach: The definition of resilience can be freely adjusted and enforced via different definitions of “typical”, it allows for incorporating complex, non‐linear models without removing relevant information from the residual, the error component of the residual can be estimated through cross‐validation, and all predictors that potentially explain cognition can be included into the model without losing resilience information from the residual. Our approach can be used to measure any phenomenon that can be operationalized as a deviation from a typical outcome and, thus, is also applicable for researching resistance to pathology.

Background: There is a need for feasible, scalable assessments to detect cognitive impairment and decline. The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is validated for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and in unsupervised and bring your own device contexts. The CBB has shown usability for self-completion in the home but has not been employed in this way in a multisite clinical trial in AD. Objective: The objective of the pilot was to evaluate feasibility of at-home, self-completion of the CBB in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) over 24 months. Methods: The CBB was included as a pilot for cognitively normal (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants in ADNI-2, invited to take the assessment in-clinic, then at at-home over a period of 24 months follow-up. Data were analyzed to explore acceptability/usability, concordance of in-clinic and at-home assessment, and validity. Results: Data were collected for 104 participants (46 CN, 51 MCI, and 7 AD) who consented to provide CBB data. Subsequent analyses were performed for the CN and MCI groups only. Test completion rates were 100%for both the first in-clinic supervised and first at-home unsupervised assessments, with few repeat performances required. However, available follow-up data declined sharply over time. Good concordance was seen between in-clinic and at-home assessments, with non-significant and small effect size differences (Cohen’s d between -0.04 and 0.28) and generally moderate correlations (r = 0.42 to 0.73). Known groups validity was also supported (11/16 comparisons with Cohen’s d≥0.3). Conclusion: These data demonstrate the feasibility of use for the CBB for unsupervised at-home, testing, including MCI groups. Optimal approaches to the application of assessments to support compliance over time remain to be determined.

AbstractCognitive change affecting patients after anaesthesia and surgery has been recognised for more than 100 yr. Research into cognitive change after anaesthesia and surgery accelerated in the 1980s when multiple studies utilised detailed neuropsychological testing for assessment of cognitive change after cardiac surgery. This body of work consistently documented decline in cognitive function in elderly patients after anaesthesia and surgery, and cognitive changes have been identified up to 7.5 yr afterwards. Importantly, other studies have identified that the incidence of cognitive change is similar after non‐cardiac surgery. Other than the inclusion of non‐surgical control groups to calculate postoperative cognitive dysfunction, research into these cognitive changes in the perioperative period has been undertaken in isolation from cognitive studies in the general population. The aim of this work is to develop similar terminology to that used in cognitive classifications of the general population for use in investigations of cognitive changes after anaesthesia and surgery. A multispecialty working group followed a modified Delphi procedure with no prespecified number of rounds comprised of three face‐to‐face meetings followed by online editing of draft versions.Two major classification guidelines [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM‐5) and National Institute for Aging and the Alzheimer Association (NIA‐AA)] are used outside of anaesthesia and surgery, and may be useful for inclusion of biomarkers in research. For clinical purposes, it is recommended to use the DSM‐5 nomenclature. The working group recommends that ‘perioperative neurocognitive disorders’ be used as an overarching term for cognitive impairment identified in the preoperative or postoperative period. This includes cognitive decline diagnosed before operation (described as neurocognitive disorder); any form of acute event (postoperative delirium) and cognitive decline diagnosed up to 30 days after the procedure (delayed neurocognitive recovery) and up to 12 months (postoperative neurocognitive disorder).

ObjectivePrevious studies suggest that the brain‐derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) Val66Met (rs6265) polymorphism may influence symptom onset in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Our recent cross‐sectional findings suggest that Met66 may influence clinical expression in dominantly inherited AD (DIAD) through its effects on tau. However, it remains unclear whether carriage of Met66 in DIAD results in faster increases in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and ptau181, and whether these increases are associated with accelerated brain volume loss and memory decline.MethodsA total of 211 subjects (101 mutation noncarriers, 110 mutation carriers), who were cognitively normal, as defined by a Clinical Dementia Rating global score of 0, completed assessments of cognitive function, neuroimaging, and CSF sampling over 3.5 years as part of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network.ResultsIn mutation carriers, Met66 carriers showed faster memory decline (4×), hippocampal volume loss (16×), and CSF tau and ptau181increases (6×) than Val66 homozygotes.BDNFdid not influence rates of cortical β‐amyloid accumulation or change in CSF Aβ42levels in mutation carriers. In mutation noncarriers,BDNFgenotype had no effect on change in cognition, brain volume, cortical β‐amyloid accumulation, or change in any CSF measures of tau, ptau181, and CSF Aβ42.InterpretationAs in sporadic AD, the deleterious effects of β‐amyloid on cognitive function, brain volume loss, and CSF tau in DIAD mutation carriers are less in Val66 homozygotes. TheBDNFVal66Met polymorphism should be considered as a potential moderator of clinical trial outcomes in current treatment and prevention trials in DIAD and sporadic AD. Ann Neurol 2018;84:424–435

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable met in November 2017 to explore the new National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association Research Framework for Alzheimer's disease. The meeting allowed experts in the field from academia, industry, and government to provide perspectives on the new National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association Research Framework. This review will summarize the “A, T, N System” (Amyloid, Tau, and Neurodegeneration) using biomarkers and how this may be applied to clinical research and drug development. In addition, challenges and barriers to the potential adoption of this new framework will be discussed. Finally, future directions for research will be proposed.