Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Application of Digital Cognitive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Identifying Cognitive Process Changes and Impending Cognitive Decline
Bock JR, Hara J, Fortier D, Lee MD, Petersen RC, Shankle WR.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2021-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Background Recent Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials have faced significant challenges to enroll pre-symptomatic or early stage AD subjects with biomarker positivity, minimal or no cognitive impairment, and likelihood to decline cognitively during a short trial period. Our previous study showed that digital cognitive biomarkers (DCB), generated by a hierarchical Bayesian cognitive process (HBCP) model, were able to distinguish groups of cognitively normal individuals with impending cognitive decline from those without. Measures Evaluated the relative value of DCBs compared to traditional measures, using three analytic approaches to group differences: 1) logistic regression of summary scores per ADAS-Cog WLM task; 2) Bayesian modeling of summary scores; and 3) HBCP modeling to generate DCBs from item-level responses. Results The HBCP model produced posterior distributions of group differences, of which Bayes factor assessment identified three DCBs with notable group differences: Immediate Retrieval from Durable Storage, (BFds = 11.8, strong evidence); One-Shot Learning, (BFds = 4.5, moderate evidence); and Partial Learning (BFds = 2.9, weak evidence). In contrast, logistic regression of summary scores did not significantly discriminate between groups, and the Bayes factor assessment of modeled summary scores provided moderate evidence that the groups were equivalent (BFsd = 3.4, 3.1, 2.9, and 1.4, respectively). Conclusions This study demonstrated DCBs' ability to distinguish , at baseline, between impending cognitive decline and non-decline groups where individuals in both groups were classified as cognitively normal. This study warrants further refinement of the HBCP DCBs to predict impending cognitive decline in individuals and other factors associated with AD, such as physical biomarker load.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bock, JR., Hara, J., Fortier, D., Lee, M. D., Petersen, R. C., & Shankle, W. R. (2021). Application of Digital Cognitive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Identifying Cognitive Process Changes and Impending Cognitive Decline. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.63
Vancouver
Bock JR, Hara J, Fortier D, Lee MD, Petersen RC, Shankle WR. Application of Digital Cognitive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Identifying Cognitive Process Changes and Impending Cognitive Decline. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2021. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.63. PMID: 33569557.
BibTeX
@article{bock2021-33569557,
author = {Bock, JR. and Hara, J. and Fortier, D. and Lee, M. D. and Petersen, R. C. and Shankle, W. R.},
title = {{Application of Digital Cognitive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Identifying Cognitive Process Changes and Impending Cognitive Decline}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2020.63},
pmid = {33569557},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.63}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Background Recent Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials have faced significant challenges to enroll pre-symptomatic or early stage AD subjects with biomarker positivity, minimal or no cognitive impairment, and likelihood to decline cognitively during a short trial period.
- Our previous study showed that digital cognitive biomarkers (DCB), generated by a hierarchical Bayesian cognitive process (HBCP) model, were able to distinguish groups of cognitively normal individuals with impending cognitive decline from those without.
- Measures Evaluated the relative value of DCBs compared to traditional measures, using three analytic approaches to group differences: 1) logistic regression of summary scores per ADAS-Cog WLM task; 2) Bayesian modeling of summary scores; and 3) HBCP modeling to generate DCBs from item-level responses.
- Results The HBCP model produced posterior distributions of group differences, of which Bayes factor assessment identified three DCBs with notable group differences: Immediate Retrieval from Durable Storage, (BFds = 11.8, strong evidence); One-Shot Learning, (BFds = 4.5, moderate evidence); and Partial Learning (BFds = 2.9, weak evidence).
- In contrast, logistic regression of summary scores did not significantly discriminate between groups, and the Bayes factor assessment of modeled summary scores provided moderate evidence that the groups were equivalent (BFsd = 3.4, 3.1, 2.9, and 1.4, respectively).
Study details
- Participants61
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 61 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33569557) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years
Also tagged “process”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “process”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.