Abstract
Digital cognitive testing using online platforms has emerged as a potentially transformative tool in clinical neuroscience. In theory, it could provide a powerful means of screening for and tracking cognitive performance in people at risk of developing conditions such as Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Here we investigate whether digital metrics derived from a tablet-based short-term memory task – “What was where?” Oxford Memory Task – were able to clinically stratify patients at different points within the AD continuum and to track disease progression over time. Performance of these metrics to traditional neuropsychological pen-and-paper screening tests of cognition was also analyzed. A total of 325 people participated in this study: 49 patients with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), 57 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 63 with AD dementia and 156 elderly healthy controls (EHC). Most digital metrics were able to discriminate between healthy controls and patients with MCI and between MCI and AD patients. Some, including Absolute Localization Error, also differed significantly between patients with SCI and MCI. Identification accuracy was the best predictor of hippocampal atrophy, performing as well as standard screening neuropsychological tests. A linear support vector model combining digital metrics achieved high accuracy and performed at par with standard testing in discriminating between EHC and SCI (AUC 0.82) and between SCI and MCI (AUC 0.92). Memory imprecision was able to predict cognitive decline on standard cognitive tests over one year. Overall, these findings show how it might be possible to use a digital memory test in clinics and clinical trial contexts to stratify and track performance across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by funding from the Wellcome Trust (206330/Z/17/Z) and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. YAT was supported by a PhD scholarship by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The funder played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the University of Oxford ethics committee (IRAS ID: 248379, Ethics Approval Reference: 18/SC/0448) and the local ethics committee in Jena.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
