Examining a Preclinical Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite for Telehealth Administration, the tPACC, for Reliability between In-Person and Remote Cognitive Testing (P6-6.002)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To evaluate the concordance of tPACC scores from in-person and remote testing. Background: The clinical trial landscape in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and related dementias is focused on targeting individuals in preclinical stages. The preclinical Alzheimer’s cognitive composite (PACC) was developed for in-person administration to capture subtle cognitive decline in amyloid positive individuals compared to amyloid negative. It is desirable to have a transportable, composite measurement sensitive to detecting cognitive changes across cognitively normal (NC) and impaired (MCI and dementia) participants. Design/Methods: We examined in-person cognitive data from 662 adults (70.2±8.1y) from the Wake Forest AD Research Center’s Clinical Core, who received clinical evaluation, cognitive testing, and adjudication. The PACC in-person only was calculated using RAVLT Delayed Recall, Digit Symbol Coding (DSC), semantic fluency, Craft Story Delayed Verbatim, and MMSE total scores using baseline NC participants as a reference. The tPACC used measurements that were available at both in-person and remote visits with modifications from the in-person PACC; Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used in place of MMSE, and DSC was not included. A subset analysis with PACC in-person and tPACC remote from a pilot study examined reliability between in-person and remote testing. We performed correlation analysis and generated Bland-Altman plots. Results: Of the 662 adults studied, 434 (66%) were female, 522 (79%) were White, 206 (34%) were APOE4 carriers, and mean education was 15.9±4.1 years. At baseline, there is a significant positive relationship between in-person tPACC and PACC (Overall group; r2=0.94, p=<0.0001, n=640). Although there is a good agreement in both subgroups (Impaired: r2=0.86, p=<0.0001, n=301 and NC: r2=0.90, p=<0.0001, n=328), tPACC overestimates cognitive performance compared to PACC for those with lower scores. We also found good agreement between in-person PACC and remote tPACC (r2=0.83, p=<0.0001, n=38). Conclusions: There is generally good agreement between tPACC and PACC for NC and impaired individuals. Disclosure: Miss Duran has nothing to disclose. The institution of Ms. Gaussoin has received research support from NIH. The institution of Dr. Lockhart has received research support from NIH. Dr. Rundle has nothing to disclose. The institution of Dr. Espeland has received research support from Alzheimer’s Association. The institution of Dr. Espeland has received research support from National Institutes of Health. Dr. Espeland has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant with National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams has nothing to disclose. Tim Hughes has nothing to disclose. Suzanne Craft has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Cognito Therapeutics. Suzanne Craft has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for T3D Therapeutics. Suzanne Craft has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Cyclerion Therapeutics. Suzanne Craft has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a member, Board of Scientific Counselors with NIA. Bonnie Sachs has received research support from NIH. Bonnie Sachs has received research support from Alzheimer’s Association. The institution of Dr. Bateman has received research support from NIA.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».