Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study
Muurling M, de Boer C, Kozak R, Religa D, Koychev I, Verheij H, Nies VJM, Duyndam A et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2021-04-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Functional decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is typically measured using single-time point subjective rating scales, which rely on direct observation or (caregiver) recall. Remote monitoring technologies (RMTs), such as smartphone applications, wearables, and home-based sensors, can change these periodic subjective assessments to more frequent, or even continuous, objective monitoring. The aim of the RADAR-AD study is to assess the accuracy and validity of RMTs in measuring functional decline in a real-world environment across preclinical-to-moderate stages of AD compared to standard clinical rating scales. Methods This study includes three tiers. For the main study, we will include participants (n = 220) with preclinical AD, prodromal AD, mild-to-moderate AD, and healthy controls, classified by MMSE and CDR score, from clinical sites equally distributed over 13 European countries. Participants will undergo extensive neuropsychological testing and physical examination. The RMT assessments, performed over an 8-week period, include walk tests, financial management tasks, an augmented reality game, two activity trackers, and two smartphone applications installed on the participants' phone. In the first sub-study, fixed sensors will be installed in the homes of a representative sub-sample of 40 participants. In the second sub-study, 10 participants will stay in a smart home for 1 week. The primary outcome of this study is the difference in functional domain profiles assessed using RMTs between the four study groups. The four participant groups will be compared for each RMT outcome measure separately. Each RMT outcome will be compared to a standard clinical test which measures the same functional or cognitive domain. Finally, multivariate prediction models will be developed. Data collection and privacy are important aspects of the project, which will be managed using the RADAR-base data platform running on specifically designed biomedical research computing infrastructure. Results First results are expected to be disseminated in 2022. Conclusion Our study is well placed to evaluate the clinical utility of RMT assessments. Leveraging modern-day technology may deliver new and improved methods for accurately monitoring functional decline in all stages of AD. It is greatly anticipated that these methods could lead to objective and real-life functional endpoints with increased sensitivity to pharmacological agent signal detection.
Key findings
- The aim of the RADAR-AD study is to assess the accuracy and validity of RMTs in measuring functional decline in a real-world environment across preclinical-to-moderate stages of AD compared to standard clinical rating scales.
- Each RMT outcome will be compared to a standard clinical test which measures the same functional or cognitive domain.
- Results First results are expected to be disseminated in 2022.
Study details
- Participants220
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 220 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33892789) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Muurling, M., de Boer, C., Kozak, R., Religa, D., Koychev, I., Verheij, H., et al. (2021). Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4
Vancouver
Muurling M, de Boer C, Kozak R, Religa D, Koychev I, Verheij H, et al. Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2021. doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4. PMID: 33892789.
BibTeX
@article{muurling2021-33892789,
author = {Muurling, M. and de Boer, C. and Kozak, R. and Religa, D. and Koychev, I. and Verheij, H. and Nies, V. J. M. and Duyndam, A. and others},
title = {{Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4},
pmid = {33892789},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4}
}
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.