Unsupervised Online Paired Associates Learning Task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB®) in the Brain Health Registry.

Brain health registry CANTAB Mild Cognitive Impairment Paired Associates Learning unsupervised cognitive assessment

Journal

The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease
ISSN: 2426-0266
Titre abrégé: J Prev Alzheimers Dis
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101638820

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
medline: 20 2 2024
pubmed: 20 2 2024
entrez: 20 2 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Unsupervised online cognitive assessments have demonstrated promise as an efficient and scalable approach for evaluating cognition in aging, and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and construct validity of the Paired Associates Learning task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery® in adults enrolled in the Brain Health Registry. The Paired Associates Learning task was administered to Brain Health Registry participants in a remote, unsupervised, online setting. In this cross-sectional analysis, we 1) evaluated construct validity by analyzing associations between Paired Associates Learning performance and additional participant registry data, including demographics, self- and study partner-reported subjective cognitive change (Everyday Cognition scale), self-reported memory concern, and depressive symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) using multivariable linear regression models; 2) determined the predictive value of Paired Associates Learning and other registry variables for identifying participants who self-report Mild Cognitive Impairment by employing multivariable binomial logistic regressions and calculating the area under the receiver operator curve; 3) investigated feasibility by looking at task completion rates and statistically comparing characteristics of task completers and non-completers; and 4) evaluated usability in terms of participant requests for support from BHR related to the assessment. In terms of construct validity, in participants who took the Paired Associates Learning for the first time (N=14,528), worse performance was associated with being older, being male, lower educational attainment, higher levels of self- and study partner-reported decline, more self-reported memory concerns, greater depressive symptom severity, and self-report of Mild Cognitive Impairment. Paired Associates Learning performance and Brain Health Registry variables together identified those with self-reported Mild Cognitive Impairment with moderate accuracy (areas under the curve: 0.66-0.68). In terms of feasibility, in a sub-sample of 29,176 participants who had the opportunity to complete Paired Associates Learning for the first time in the registry, 14,417 started the task. 11,647 (80.9% of those who started) completed the task. Compared to those who did not complete the task at their first opportunity, those who completed were older, had more years of education, more likely to self-identify as White, less likely to self-identify as Latino, less likely to have a subjective memory concern, and more likely to report a family history of Alzheimer's disease. In terms of usability, out of 8,395 received requests for support from BHR staff via email, 4.4% (n=374) were related to PAL. Of those, 82% were related to technical difficulties. Our findings support moderate feasibility, good usability, and construct validity of cross-sectional Paired Associates Learning in an unsupervised online registry, but also highlight the need to make the assessment more inclusive and accessible to individuals from ethnoculturally and socioeconomically diverse communities. A future, improved version could be a scalable, efficient method to assess cognition in many different settings, including clinical trials, observational studies, healthcare, and public health.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Unsupervised online cognitive assessments have demonstrated promise as an efficient and scalable approach for evaluating cognition in aging, and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and construct validity of the Paired Associates Learning task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery® in adults enrolled in the Brain Health Registry.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, MEASUREMENTS METHODS
The Paired Associates Learning task was administered to Brain Health Registry participants in a remote, unsupervised, online setting. In this cross-sectional analysis, we 1) evaluated construct validity by analyzing associations between Paired Associates Learning performance and additional participant registry data, including demographics, self- and study partner-reported subjective cognitive change (Everyday Cognition scale), self-reported memory concern, and depressive symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) using multivariable linear regression models; 2) determined the predictive value of Paired Associates Learning and other registry variables for identifying participants who self-report Mild Cognitive Impairment by employing multivariable binomial logistic regressions and calculating the area under the receiver operator curve; 3) investigated feasibility by looking at task completion rates and statistically comparing characteristics of task completers and non-completers; and 4) evaluated usability in terms of participant requests for support from BHR related to the assessment.
RESULTS RESULTS
In terms of construct validity, in participants who took the Paired Associates Learning for the first time (N=14,528), worse performance was associated with being older, being male, lower educational attainment, higher levels of self- and study partner-reported decline, more self-reported memory concerns, greater depressive symptom severity, and self-report of Mild Cognitive Impairment. Paired Associates Learning performance and Brain Health Registry variables together identified those with self-reported Mild Cognitive Impairment with moderate accuracy (areas under the curve: 0.66-0.68). In terms of feasibility, in a sub-sample of 29,176 participants who had the opportunity to complete Paired Associates Learning for the first time in the registry, 14,417 started the task. 11,647 (80.9% of those who started) completed the task. Compared to those who did not complete the task at their first opportunity, those who completed were older, had more years of education, more likely to self-identify as White, less likely to self-identify as Latino, less likely to have a subjective memory concern, and more likely to report a family history of Alzheimer's disease. In terms of usability, out of 8,395 received requests for support from BHR staff via email, 4.4% (n=374) were related to PAL. Of those, 82% were related to technical difficulties.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings support moderate feasibility, good usability, and construct validity of cross-sectional Paired Associates Learning in an unsupervised online registry, but also highlight the need to make the assessment more inclusive and accessible to individuals from ethnoculturally and socioeconomically diverse communities. A future, improved version could be a scalable, efficient method to assess cognition in many different settings, including clinical trials, observational studies, healthcare, and public health.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38374758
doi: 10.14283/jpad.2023.117
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

514-524

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Anna Aaronson, Winnie Kwang, Joseph Eichenbaum, Shilpa Gummadi, Chengshi Jin, Timothy Banh, Aaron Ulbricht, Monica R. Camacho, Juliet Fockler, Derek Flenniken, Nathan Cashdollar, Emily Thorp, Elizabeth Wragg, Francesca Cormack, Kenton H. Zavitz, and Diana Truran report no conflict of interest. Miriam T. Ashford is supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging, grant F32AG072730-01. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. John Neuhaus reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study. R. Scott Mackin reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, grants from Janssen Research and Development LLC, grants from National Institute of Aging, outside the submitted work. Michael W. Weiner reports grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants from Department of Defense (DOD), grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), grants from California Department of Public Health (CDPH), grants from University of Michigan, grants from Siemens, grants from Biogen, grants from Hillblom Foundation, grants from Alzheimer’s Association, grants from The State of California, grants from Johnson and Johnson, grants from Kevin and Connie Shanahan, grants from GE, grants from VUmc, grants from Australian Catholic University (HBI-BHR), grants from The Stroke Foundation, grants from Veterans Administration, personal fees from Acumen Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Cerecin, personal fees from Dolby Family Ventures, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., personal fees from National Institute on Aging (NIA), personal fees from Nestle/Nestec, personal fees from PCORI/PPRN, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from University of Southern California (USC), personal fees from NervGen, personal fees from Baird Equity Capital, personal fees from BioClinica, personal fees from Cytox, personal fees from Duke University, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from FUJIFILM-Toyama Chemical (Japan), personal fees from Garfield Weston, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Guidepoint Global, personal fees from Indiana University, personal fees from Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, Inc. (JOMDD), personal fees from Medscape, personal fees from Peerview Internal Medicine, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from T3D Therapeutics, personal fees from WebMD, personal fees from Vida Ventures, personal fees from The Buck Institute for Research on Aging, personal fees from China Association for Alzheimer’s Disease (CAAD), personal fees from Japan Society for Dementia Research, personal fees from Korean Dementia Society, outside the submitted work; and I hold stocks or options with Alzheon Inc., Alzeca, and Anven. Rachel Nosheny reports grants from NIH, grants from Genentech, Inc., and grants from California Department of Public Health outside the submitted work.

Auteurs

Classifications MeSH