Comparing associations of Alzheimer’s disease plasma biomarkers with remote self‐administered cognitive measures versus in‐person neuropsychological tests
Authors: Boots Elizabeth A. , Frank Ryan D. , Fan Winnie Z. , Christianson Teresa J. , Karstens Aimee J. , Kremers Walter K. , Stricker John L. , Machulda Mary M. , Fields Julie A. , Hassenstab Jason J. , Graff‐Radford Jonathan , Vemuri Prashanthi , Jack Clifford R. , Knopman David S. , Mielke Michelle M. , Petersen Ronald C. , Stricker Nikki H. 
Published: December 2023

AbstractBackgroundBrief self‐administered cognitive assessments deployed remotely and combined with plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are well suited to assess clinical symptoms and underlying biology in large‐scale decentralized studies. We investigated whether associations of self‐administered cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers were comparable to associations of in‐person cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers.MethodParticipants included 327 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (mean age = 70.8; 48% female; mean education = 16.0 years; 96.9% white). Most (94.5%) were cognitively unimpaired; 5.5% had consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Participants completed Mayo Test Drive (MTD; Stricker et al., 2022), a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible web‐based cognitive assessment comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and Symbols test that are combined into a MTD composite. Participants also completed in‐person neuropsychological assessment (global‐z; Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite [Mayo‐PACC]) and fasting venipuncture. Plasma was assayed via HD‐X simoa platform for amyloid‐beta (Aß)‐42 and Aß‐40 to create an Aß42/40 ratio, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) using the N4PE Quanterix kit as well as phosphorylated‐tau protein 181 (p‐tau181). P‐tau181, GFAP, and NfL were log10‐transformed. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and education examined associations between plasma biomarkers and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites.ResultLower performances on MTD, global‐z, and Mayo‐PACC (Table 1) were associated with higher GFAP (p’s = .02), NfL (p’s = .003), and p‐tau181 (p’s = .04). For memory, worse SLS and AVLT sum of trials were associated with higher GFAP (p’s = .01) and NfL (p’s = .03). For processing speed/executive function, worse Symbols and Trails B were associated with higher p‐tau181 (p’s = .02). Worse Trails B and Digit Symbol Coding were associated with higher NfL (p’s = .02), and worse Digit Symbol Coding was associated with lower Aß42/40 (p = 0.03; Table 2). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly more variance (p = .04) for NfL (adjusted R‐squared = 0.461) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.447); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05).ConclusionRemote and in‐person composite measures showed comparable associations with AD‐related plasma biomarkers, supporting MTD’s criterion validity.