Augmented reality versus standard tests to assess cognition and function in early Alzheimer's disease.
Journal
NPJ digital medicine
ISSN: 2398-6352
Titre abrégé: NPJ Digit Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101731738
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Dec 2023
18 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
29
11
2023
medline:
19
12
2023
pubmed:
19
12
2023
entrez:
18
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Augmented reality (AR) apps, in which the virtual and real world are combined, can recreate instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and are therefore promising to measure cognition needed for IADL in early Alzheimer's disease (AD) both in the clinic and in the home settings. The primary aim of this study was to distinguish and classify healthy controls (HC) from participants with AD pathology in an early AD stage using an AR app. The secondary aims were to test the association of the app with clinical cognitive and functional tests and investigate the feasibility of at-home testing using AR. We furthermore investigated the test-retest reliability and potential learning effects of the task. The digital score from the AR app could significantly distinguish HC from preclinical AD (preAD) and prodromal AD (proAD), and preAD from proAD, both with in-clinic and at-home tests. For the classification of the proAD group, the digital score (AUC
Identifiants
pubmed: 38110486
doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00978-6
pii: 10.1038/s41746-023-00978-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
234Subventions
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : 806999
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Sperling, R. A. et al. Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 7, 280–292 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.003
pubmed: 21514248
pmcid: 3220946
Lawton, M. P. & Brody, E. M. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9, 179–186 (1969).
doi: 10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179
pubmed: 5349366
Dubbelman, M. A. et al. Trajectories of decline in cognitively complex everyday activities across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum: Neuropsychology: Longitudinal cognitive assessment in early stages of AD. Alzheimers Dement. 16, e044787 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/alz.044787
Jutten, R. J. et al. Detecting functional decline from normal aging to dementia: development and validation of a short version of the Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire. Alzheimers Dement. (Amst). 8, 26–35 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2017.03.002
pubmed: 28462387
pmcid: 5403784
Jekel, K. et al. Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 7, 1–20 (2015).
doi: 10.1186/s13195-015-0099-0
Tuena, C. et al. Egocentric and allocentric spatial memory in mild cognitive impairment with real-world and virtual navigation tasks: a systematic review. J. Alzheimers Dis. 79, 95–116 (2021).
doi: 10.3233/JAD-201017
pubmed: 33216034
pmcid: 7902987
Jin, R., Pilozzi, A. & Huang, X. Current cognition tests, potential virtual reality applications, and serious games in cognitive assessment and non-pharmacological therapy for neurocognitive disorders. J. Clin. Med. 9, 3287 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/jcm9103287
pubmed: 33066242
pmcid: 7602094
Clay, F., Howett, D., FitzGerald, J., Fletcher, P., Chan, D. & Price, A. Use of immersive virtual reality in the assessment and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. J. Alzheimers Dis. 75, 23–43 (2020).
doi: 10.3233/JAD-191218
pubmed: 32280091
pmcid: 7306888
Meier, I. B., Buegler, M., Harms, R., Seixas, A., Çöltekin, A. & Tarnanas, I. Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer’s disease: the Altoida large cohort study. NPJ Digital Med. 4, 1–9 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00470-z
van Dyck, C. H. et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 9–21 (2023).
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212948
pubmed: 36449413
D’Cunha, N. M. et al. A mini-review of virtual reality-based interventions to promote well-being for people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Gerontology 65, 430–440 (2019).
doi: 10.1159/000500040
pubmed: 31108489
Buckley, R. F. et al. Sex differences in the association of global amyloid and regional tau deposition measured by positron emission tomography in clinically normal older adults. JAMA Neurol. 76, 542–551 (2019).
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4693
pubmed: 30715078
pmcid: 6515599
Ferretti, M. T. et al. Sex differences in Alzheimer disease—the gateway to precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 457–469 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0032-9
pubmed: 29985474
Buckley, R. F., Gong, J. & Woodward, M. A call to action to address sex differences in Alzheimer disease clinical trials. JAMA Neurol. 80, 769–770 (2023).
Harms, R. L. et al. Digital biomarkers and sex impacts in Alzheimer’s disease management—potential utility for innovative 3P medicine approach. EPMA J. 13, 299–313 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s13167-022-00284-3
pubmed: 35719134
pmcid: 9203627
Cho, P. J. et al. Demographic imbalances resulting from the bring-your-own-device study design. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 10, e29510 (2022).
doi: 10.2196/29510
pubmed: 34913871
pmcid: 9034431
Nicosia, J. et al. To BYOD or not: Are device latencies important for bring-your-own-device (BYOD) smartphone cognitive testing? Behav. Res. Methods 55, 2800–2812 (2023).
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. & McHugh, P. R. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12, 189–198 (1974).
doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Morris, J. C. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 43, 2412–2414 (1993).
Jack, C. R. Jr. et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 14, 535–562 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018
pubmed: 29653606
pmcid: 5958625
Muurling, M. et al. Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer’s disease: design of the RADAR-AD study. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 13, 1–13 (2021).
doi: 10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4
Muurling, M. et al. Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: a case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study. PLoS One 18, e0285807 (2023).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285807
pubmed: 37418385
pmcid: 10328231
McLeod, D. R., Griffiths, R. R., Bigelow, G. E. & Yingling, J. An automated version of the digit symbol substitution test (DSST). Behavior Res. Instrum. 14, 463–466 (1982).
doi: 10.3758/BF03203313
Cherrier, M. M., Mendez, M. F., Dave, M. & Perryman, K. M. Performance on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test in Alzheimer disease and vascular dementia. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. 12, 95–101 (1999).
pubmed: 10223256
Zarino, B., Crespi, M., Launi, M. & Casarotti, A. A new standardization of semantic verbal fluency test. Neurol. Sci. 35, 1405–1411 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10072-014-1729-1
pubmed: 24705901
Mack, W. J., Freed, D. M., Williams, B. W. & Henderson, V. W. Boston Naming Test: shortened versions for use in Alzheimer’s disease. J. Gerontol. 47, P154–P158 (1992).
doi: 10.1093/geronj/47.3.P154
pubmed: 1573197
Buegler, M. et al. Digital biomarker‐based individualized prognosis for people at risk of dementia. Alzheimers Dement. (Amst) 12, e12073 (2020).
pubmed: 32832589
Tarnanas, I., Tsolaki, A., Wiederhold, M., Wiederhold, B. & Tsolaki, M. Five-year biomarker progression variability for Alzheimer’s disease dementia prediction: can a complex instrumental activities of daily living marker fill in the gaps?. Alzheimers Dement. (Amst) 1, 521–532 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2015.10.005
pubmed: 27239530
Dubbelman, M. A., Terwee, C. B., Verrijp, M., Visser, L. N., Scheltens, P. & Sikkes, S. A. Giving meaning to the scores of the Amsterdam instrumental activities of daily living questionnaire: a qualitative study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 20, 1–5 (2022).
doi: 10.1186/s12955-022-01958-2
Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 15, 155–163 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
pubmed: 27330520
pmcid: 4913118