Contributions of remote, unsupervised dyadic subjective measures to identify older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment. (20th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nosheny, Rachel L; Jin, Chengshi; Knight, Krissy N; Banh, Timothy; Howell, Taylor; Truran‐Sacrey, Diana; Fockler, Juliet; Bui, Chau L; Gummadi, Shilpa L; Santhakumar, Jess; Ashford, Miriam T.; Camacho, Monica R; Flenniken, Derek; Roberson, Erik D; Morris, John C.; Moulder, Krista L.; Li, Yan; Petersen, Ronald C.; Stricker, Nikki H.; Rabinovici, Gil D.; Carrillo, Maria C.; Neuhaus, John; Mackin, R Scott; Weiner, Michael W.
• Is Part Of: Alzheimer's & dementia. Volume 18(2022)Supplement 7
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-12-20
• Subjects: Alzheimer's disease -- Periodicals; Alzheimer Disease -- Periodicals; Dementia -- Periodicals; Démence; Maladie d'Alzheimer; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.83
• DOI: 10.1002/alz.061353
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1552-5260

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Dyadic (self and study partner) subjective reports of an individual's recent cognitive and functional decline are an efficient approach to facilitate identification of older adults with, and at risk for, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Such methods can be easily adapted for remote administration, but few studies have investigated the ability of remotely‐collected, unsupervised dyadic subjective reports to accurately detect MCI and cognitive decline. Methods: In 289 older adults enrolled in the Brain health Registry (BHR), with clinically‐confirmed diagnoses of Cognitively‐unimpaired (CU) or MCI, we identified the optimal combination of remote measures to accurately distinguish CU from MCI. We then externally validated our predictive model in 217 participants enrolled in a separate cohort, Validation of Online Methods to Predict Cognitive Decline (eVAL). Predictors included Cogstate Brief Battery One Card Learning (OCL) accuracy; self‐ and study partner‐reported memory concern (SMCs); performance on online adaptations of Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog, self‐ and study partner‐report versions), Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS); family history of AD, age, gender, and education. We calculated 10‐fold cross validated area under the ROC curves (cvAUC), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the percentage of participants correctly classified (accuracy) for all models. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests were used to compare model fits. Results: In the BHR cohort, models including dyad‐report ECog, family history of AD, GDS, and Cogstate OCL scores distinguished CU from MCI with the highest accuracy (cvAUC = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83, 0.92; accuracy = 85.5%). Models excluding study partner‐report ECog distinguished diagnostic groups with moderate accuracy (cvAUC = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.78, 0.85; accuracy = 75.9%) When applied to the validation cohort, the optimal training model including dyadic report performed with moderate accuracy ( Table 2 ). In the validation cohort, inclusion of study partner (but not self) report SMC, in addition to dyadic‐report ECog, improved model fit (LR test p<0.01). Conclusions: Remotely‐collected dyadic subjective measures, along with other remote measures, accurately distinguish CU from MCI. Subjective cognitive and functional decline and concerns about memory problems independently contribute to diagnostic discrimination. Results support future utilization of remote dyadic subjective measures to efficiently identify older adults with MCI for prodromal AD clinical trials, and in clinical care settings.