Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer's Disease Secondary Prevention Trial
Papp KV, Rentz DM, Maruff P, Sun CK, Raman R, Donohue MC, Schembri A, Stark C et al.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2021-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Computerized cognitive assessments may improve Alzheimer's disease (AD) secondary prevention trial efficiency and accuracy. However, they require validation against standard outcomes and relevant biomarkers. Objective To assess the feasibility and validity of the tablet-based Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3). Design Cross-sectional analysis of cognitive screening data from the A4 study (Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD). Setting Multi-center international study. Participants Clinically normal (CN) older adults (65-85; n=4486). Measurements Participants underwent florbetapir-Positron Emission Tomography for Aβ+/- classification. They completed the C3 and standard paper and pencil measures included in the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC). The C3 combines memory measures sensitive to change over time (Cogstate Brief Battery-One Card Learning) and measures shown to be declining early in AD including pattern separation (Behavioral Pattern Separation Test- Object- Lure Discrimination Index) and associative memory (Face Name Associative Memory Exam- Face-Name Matching). C3 acceptability and completion rates were assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. C3 performance was explored in relation to Aβ+/- groups (n=1323/3163) and PACC. Results C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete. Rates of incomplete or invalid administrations were extremely low, even in the bottom quartile of cognitive performers (PACC). C3 was moderately correlated with PACC (r=0.39). Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen's d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p<0.001] and at a magnitude comparable to the PACC [d=-0.32 (95%CI: -0.41,-0.23) p<0.001]. Better C3 performance was observed in younger, more educated, and female participants. Conclusions These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Papp, K. V., Rentz, D. M., Maruff, P., Sun, C. K., Raman, R., Donohue, M. C., et al. (2021). The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer's Disease Secondary Prevention Trial. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.38
Vancouver
Papp KV, Rentz DM, Maruff P, Sun CK, Raman R, Donohue MC, et al. The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer's Disease Secondary Prevention Trial. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2021. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.38. PMID: 33336226.
BibTeX
@article{papp2021-33336226,
author = {Papp, K. V. and Rentz, D. M. and Maruff, P. and Sun, C. K. and Raman, R. and Donohue, M. C. and Schembri, A. and Stark, C. and others},
title = {{The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer's Disease Secondary Prevention Trial}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2020.38},
pmid = {33336226},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.38}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete.
- Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen's d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p<0.001] and at a magnitude comparable to the PACC [d=-0.32 (95%CI: -0.41,-0.23) p<0.001].
- Conclusions These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants4,486
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 61 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 | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 4,486 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33336226) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100. |
| Total | 61 / 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 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.