Abstract
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a risk factor for cognitive decline. In neurodegenerative disease research, remote digital cognitive assessments and unobtrusive sensors are gaining traction for their potential to improve early detection and monitoring of cognitive impairment. Given the high prevalence of cognitive impairments in T2D, these digital tools are highly relevant. Further research incorporating remote digital biomarkers of cognition, behavior, and motor functioning may enable comprehensive characterizations of patients with T2D and may ultimately improve clinical care and equitable access to research participation. The aim of this commentary article is to review the feasibility, validity, and limitations of using remote digital cognitive tests and unobtrusive detection methods to identify and monitor cognitive decline in neurodegenerative conditions and apply these insights to patients with T2D.
Keywords: type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, digital biomarkers, health technology
Introduction
One in 10 Americans has diabetes, and approximately 90% to 95% of these cases are type 2 diabetes (T2D).1 -3 T2D is associated with a 1.5- to 2.5-fold increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.4 -10 T2D and downstream effects of hyperinsulinemia adversely influence cognition, particularly memory, executive functioning, and information processing speed. 11 T2D is associated with lower brain volume and perfusion, greater white matter hyperintensities, and higher prevalence of cerebrovascular disease compared with nondiabetic controls.7,12 -20 Epidemiological studies suggest an increased prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) in T2D patients, and murine models suggest a mechanism through which altered insulin pathways promote the development and accumulation of ADRD pathology.21 -24
Early detection of dementia and cognitive decline is an important care management strategy in older adults. Although there are ethical considerations when raising awareness of early cognitive deficits given the paucity of effective treatments to stop cognitive decline, early detection of cognitive deficits can improve patient and family quality of life, reduce caregiver burden, lower care costs, and enable earlier interventions for symptom management and modifying disease progression.25 -29 Moreover, neurodegenerative diseases have long preclinical periods of pathological aggregation prior to clinical symptom onset,30 -32 and clinical trials in several neurological illnesses suggest treatments will be most effective if initiated early in the disease course.33,34 Thus, the preclinical phase of neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular disease presents a time-sensitive opportunity for intervention and enrollment in clinical trials, making early detection of cognitive changes in T2D an urgent unmet need. Digital technologies offer the possibility of self-administered, low-cost, scalable, and efficient methods for detecting and monitoring neurocognitive change in patients with T2D. 35
Rapid technological advances hastened the development of reliable digital tools for remote evaluations of cognition. The growing list of digital assessments can broadly be classified based on whether patients must engage with the digital technology (active), or the technology monitors patients without active engagement (passive). This article discusses recent advances in active and passive approaches to remote monitoring in ADRD that may be relevant for detecting and monitoring cognitive changes in patients with T2D. We examine the scientific evidence supporting the reliability, validity, and feasibility of digital technology measures, in both active and passive forms, and raise practical considerations for implementation.
Active Digital Monitoring Assessment Tools
Active digital assessments can be delivered to T2D patients using different formats (e.g., examiner-administered versus self-administered), settings (e.g., clinic vs home), and devices (e.g., computers, tablets, and smartphones). Computerized active cognitive assessments can reduce time, cost, and staffing needs associated with traditional paper-and-pencil cognitive assessments.36 -38 Clinician time and scoring errors may be reduced through automated scoring and data exporting.35 -37,39 Online assessments are scalable and facilitate frequent repeated assessments, which can improve assessment reliability and sensitivity.36,40 -42 Testing within a patient’s own environment improves ecological validity43,44 and correlates highly with in-person testing.45 -52 We discuss promising active digital assessment tools which can be implemented for cognitive health monitoring in T2D patients, focusing on unsupervised assessments and smartphone-based tools.
Computer-, Tablet-, and Browser-Based Assessments
Supervised examiner administration
Most active digital cognitive measures have been developed for the computer, tablet, or browser. Of these, most studies rely on study teams to administer participant tests in highly controlled research settings. Supervised digital cognitive assessment batteries are highly reliable,43,53 sensitive to preclinical neurodegenerative disease,46,53 and useful for tracking changes longitudinally. 53 See Staffaroni et al 36 for a review of batteries with the greatest empirical evidence.
Unsupervised administration
Although in-person, examiner-administered assessments are the gold-standard for reducing confounds through standardized testing protocols, the time and cost benefits associated with unsupervised administration protocols offer a scalable alternative.40,54,55 Two recent large-scale efforts provide initial support for unsupervised browser-based cognitive assessment validity in ADRD research. The UCSF Brain Health Registry, an online registry of over 75 000 participants, administered unsupervised browser-based Cogstate cognitive tests and found excellent criterion-related validity, including improved diagnostic classification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD compared with demographics alone. 38 Another study using unsupervised browser-based assessments from the Platform for Research Online to investigate Genetics and Cognition in Ageing (PROTECT) developed a composite score that successfully distinguished between normal cognition and early AD at baseline, and was sensitive to cognitive and functional decline over 2 years. 56 Other unsupervised or self-administered computer or tablet batteries include the Cogstate C3, forthcoming self-administered UCSF TabCAT Brain Health Assessment (personal communication, Kate Possin), among several others.57 -60 Unsupervised assessments are a promising novel paradigm for delivering assessments in a scalable fashion that might be relevant for studies of T2D.
Smartphone-Based Assessments
Smartphone-based assessments of cognition, motor functioning, speech, and language are under evaluation for ADRD. Smartphones are attractive for conducting widely accessible remote cognitive evaluations given their high prevalence globally. 53 Assessments deployed through smartphones have been found to be reliable40,41,53 and valid, as supported by evidence of strong correspondence between smartphone cognitive tests and gold-standard cognitive tests,40,61 -65 everyday functioning,62,66 -68 brain imaging, and fluid biomarkers of AD pathology.40,69 -72
Motor deficits are a common manifestation of a range of neurodegenerative, neurological, and other medical conditions including T2D.73 -77 Applications have been developed to utilize the smartphone’s touch screen, accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope to quantify gait, balance, dexterity, and coordination. Smartphone-based assessments of finger tapping, gait, and balance can detect treatment response, predict disease severity, and are correlated with standard clinical motor assessments.78,79
Language impairment is a central feature of many neurodegenerative disorders, and subtle speech changes may occur early in the disease process either due to changes in speech/language networks or secondary to other cognitive deficits. Several applications leverage smartphones’ audio recording capabilities to capture speech during conversation and completion of various tasks.36,80 Automated processing pipelines extract linguistic (e.g., syntactic complexity, semantic content, and lexical diversity) and acoustic (e.g., pause length, pitch) features from audio recordings.80 -85 Digital speech analyses are sensitive tools to detect early signs of cognitive impairment and predict transition from normal cognition to MCI.80,81,86 -88 One study comparing healthy older adults with and without T2D suggested temporal speech parameters (e.g., utterance length and total pause duration), but not standard neuropsychological measures, were sensitive to early cognitive changes in those with T2D. 89 Replication and extension are needed to understand the utility of speech recordings for early detection of cognitive decline in T2D.
A few platforms collect several data streams including self-administered cognitive tests, motor, and speech collection using a single smartphone app such as the NIH-funded ALLFTD Mobile App, built on the Linkt app in partnership with Datacubed Health.36,90
To overcome the noise inherent to testing people in an unsupervised environment, innovative testing paradigms with repeated measurements are employed in smartphone testing studies. Some studies utilize randomized independent parallel test versions for each memory task to reduce confounding practice effects,41,53 whereas others administer the same test multiple times and capitalize on diminished practice effects as an early indicator of pathological brain changes. 53 The “burst” approach is a paradigm for deploying repeated assessments delivered at varying times per day using a pseudorandomized ecological momentary assessment method and is promising for extracting highly reliable data from unsupervised evaluation.43,70,71,91 -93
Limitations of Active Tools
Despite many benefits, active remote monitoring is not without limitations and unique considerations. A common criticism of unsupervised self-administration is the difficulty discerning a participant’s level of effort and engagement, the presence of distractions, and whether assistance completing measures was received. 45 Distractions are reported to occur in a small (~7.4%) yet nonnegligible proportion of participants completing unsupervised remote cognitive testing. 49 For patients with cognitive impairments or low digital familiarity, it may be difficult or impossible to engage them in testing without a proctor. Additional ethical concerns must be considered if attempting to integrate caregivers as proctors for participants with more substantial cognitive deficits—current recommendations are to only engage caregivers in setting up digital assessments but not proctoring any tasks. 94
The lack of widespread access to technology and internet connectivity is a significant barrier, particularly in older adults, low-income households, and ethnic diverse ethnic groups. However, studies show a steadily increasing rise in technology adoption, smartphone ownership, and accessibility among these populations, especially in recent years.95 -103 Investigators and clinicians must also decide whether to use a “managed” or “bring-your-own” device (BYOD). A managed device (i.e., a dedicated device for the cognitive assessment rather than the examinee’s own device) may reduce variance associated with hardware and software, but requires additional resources for device purchase and maintenance. 36 Differing levels of familiarity with the chosen managed device may also affect performance. 36 Alternatively, BYOD may reach a wider and more diverse audience at a lower cost, although concerns regarding the effects of hardware and software differences remain. 104 Finally, privacy concerns must be considered while using digital data capture as cybersecurity is paramount.35,105,106 Despite its limitations, active testing paradigms are reliable and valid methods for conducting ADRD research and are relevant for observational and interventional diabetes studies.
Passive Monitoring Assessment Tools
Digital health technologies are not only used to deliver active testing protocols but also for unobtrusive monitoring of real-world cognitive and physical functioning. Passive remote monitoring approaches typically place sensors throughout a participant’s environment and software on electronic devices to monitor activity patterns. We discuss some of the most promising sensors, wearables, and platforms for sensor integration to consider for implementation in diabetes research.
In-Home Sensor Monitoring
A common approach to passive data collection involves using sensors to monitor movement inside and outside of the home. In-home passive infrared (PIR) motion sensors record indoor mobility frequency and variability (room-to-room transitions/day) and walking speed.107 -116 Fewer outings and decreased indoor movement were found in people with incident cognitive impairment. 117 Graded reduction in gait velocity, collected unobtrusively from in-home PIR sensors, is both associated with and predictive of cognitive and physical decline.107,110,118 -122 PIR sensors can also detect the nonamnestic subtype of MCI in older adults with high precision. 123
Other in-home technologies include bioelectrical impedance analysis of a digital scale to track weight fluctuations, a sleep mat placed under a patient’s mattress to measure heart and respiratory rate variability, sleep duration and sleep stage measurements, and a 7-day electronic pillbox recording medication adherence.115,116 A study comparing healthy older adults with slight differences on cognitive testing, observed large differences in medication adherence—thereby suggesting real-world monitoring may be more sensitive than traditional gold-standard paper-and-pencil tasks.116,124,125 Audio recordings can also be collected passively (e.g., during phone calls or interviews, in-home microphone use).126 -128 We anticipate the array of behaviors captured by in-home sensors will continue to expand as sensor technology develops.
Monitoring Driving and GPS
Driving is a complex functional activity requiring the integration of multiple cognitive domains. Impaired driving possesses high-stake safety implications, making it a clinically relevant target for passive monitoring. GPS data can be combined with software to monitor driving behaviors (i.e., rapid acceleration and braking). Everyday driving behavior, such as driving shorter distances and fewer visits to unique destinations, is associated with and predictive of preclinical AD.129,130 Even in nondriving patients, GPS may be a method to study changes in travel, social activities, and other aspects of movement that might reflect underlying health issues.
Wearable Devices
Wearable devices (e.g., wristbands and smartwatches) enable continuous monitoring of physical activity, movement via GPS, and a vast range of physiological functions including sleep, gait, heart rate, electrocardiogram, blood oxygen, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Combinations of mobility metrics (e.g., steps, turning, and transition from sit-to-stand) obtained from wearable devices are related to specific health outcomes such as MCI, Parkinson’s disease, and AD-dementia.131,132 Heart rate variability is related to mental stress and cardiac functioning over time,133 -135 which may be a feasible tool to assess and monitor cognitive and brain health-related physiological changes.136,137 A study found adherence to wearing a Fitbit device (89% of study days) was a predictor of memory functioning among older adults, 138 while wearable-quantified physical activity was more predictive of brain health and cardiometabolic indices than self-report. 139 High adherence in daily wear, incremental validity over self-report measures, and relatively low costs make wearable devices a viable tool for both research and clinical monitoring of T2D patients.
Computer Usage Monitoring
Interacting with personal electronic devices requires a complex orchestration of cognitive skills. Software installed to monitor computer and smartphone usage generates densely sampled data to identify metrics sensitive to early cognitive changes. For example, participants with MCI demonstrate lower overall computer usage and greater day-to-day usage time variability relative to cognitively normal controls. 140 Compared with cognitively intact older adults, older adults with MCI generate fewer, more variable, and less efficient mouse movements, which are significantly associated with gold-standard cognitive test scores. 141 In another study, participants with MCI spent less time on the computer and on various computer programs (e.g., email, word processing applications, search functions) compared with healthy controls. 142 In Huntington’s disease, mutation carriers are more inconsistent than controls in keyboard strokes and typing cadence—both of which are correlated with disease severity. 143
Smartphone Usage Monitoring
Given that over 83% of the world owns smartphones globally, 144 and these devices are often carried throughout the day, smartphones offer a unique inroad to daily activity and functioning. Integrated sensors and usage meta-data (e.g., steps, user commute routine) are collected automatically in smartphones and are often accessible for research purposes.145,146 Examples of extractable data types include typing patterns, call frequency, social media app interactions, and environmental decibel levels. Open-source software packages and digital phenotyping platforms (e.g., Beiwe app) 147 are available for investigators to extract data from participants’ interaction with their smartphones (e.g., finger tapping, keystroke metadata).148 -150 The Linkt/ALLFTD App also captures several aspects of passive data including step count, screen time, social media app usage, GPS, and battery life.36,151 -153 Extracting smartphone metadata is a promising and scalable passive monitoring approach, although more research is required to understand how best to utilize this rich data source and identify best metrics for reliable early detection and monitoring of cognitive and functional changes.
Passive Data Input Integration
Rather than relying on a single sensor type or software package for passive data collection, time-stamped integration across multiple passive data streams may enable the most comprehensive and sensitive view of daily functioning and cognitive status. 154 The Collaborative Aging Research using Technology (CART) Initiative 124 platform integrates data captured from various sensors and software discussed above and weekly questionnaires completed by participants to contextualize data (e.g., presence of visitors, medication changes). Integrative platforms easily incorporate with CGMs and smart insulin pen smartphone app data to better understand cognitive fluctuations in relation to blood glucose level fluctuations as a mechanism to determine predictors of cognitive decline.
Limitations of Passive Tools
Despite its benefits, passive remote monitoring methods have several limitations. For example, wearables may be linked to perceived social stigma associated with diabetes as visible devices could reveal health status to others155 -157; new data, however, suggests increasing willingness to wear devices and positive experiences with wearable use among adults and older adults.136,158 -161 Digital sensors can also be expensive and in-home installation must be consistently executed to obtain accurate naturalistic data. Like active technologies, cybersecurity and ethical implications of private home monitoring must be considered. The black box nature of commercial software and firmware algorithms can change, sometimes unbeknownst to the user, during a study. As new versions of devices are released, consistency with prior versions cannot be assumed and time-consuming harmonization studies are often required. Finally, challenges may arise when contextualizing collected data as sensors and digital devices must accurately discern sensors activated by the patient and not by other people, animals, or external forces.
Conclusions
Innovative technological solutions for active and passive monitoring allow clinicians to extend evaluations of patients with T2D beyond the clinic into patients’ daily lives to monitor and assess cognitive and functional status. Quantifying complex daily behaviors may enhance sensitivity to early cognitive and functional decline while offering opportunity for continuous longitudinal monitoring. 162 Given the increased risk of dementia and cognitive decline among individuals with T2D, it is imperative to identify indicators of cognitive impairment during the preclinical period.4,5 It will be important for T2D digital monitoring studies to account for acute cognitive changes secondary to hypoglycemia to avoid false conclusions of a concomitant cognitive disorder due to, for example, a neurodegenerative or cerebrovascular etiology. At this time, unsupervised remote digital assessments should not be used for clinical decision making, but rather could prompt in-person assessments with trained clinicians. Diabetes medicine was an early adopter of health technology and is well-positioned for incorporating digital biomarkers to enable comprehensive characterizations of patients with T2D, thereby improving clinical care.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to Dr David C. Klonoff for his valuable feedback and support throughout the process of writing this commentary.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: ADRD, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias; BYOD, bring-your-own device; CART, the Collaborative Aging Research using Technology; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; ORCATECH, Oregon Center for Aging and Technology; PIR, passive infrared; PROTECT, platform for research online to investigate genetics and cognition in aging; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr AMS is an inventor of a subset of ALLFTD Mobile App cognitive tasks and receives licensing fees. AYD conducts human research at Google, Alphabet Inc., outside the scope of this work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest.
Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Staffaroni is supported by the NIH/NIA (K23AG061253). The authors otherwise received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs: Ashley Y. DuBord https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-7065
Emily W. Paolillo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4188-6998
Adam M. Staffaroni https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3903-9805
References
- 1. World Health Organization. Diabetes. https://www.who.int/health-topics/diabetes#tab=tab_1. Published January 2022. Accessed April 12, 2023.
- 2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html. Published November 21, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2023.
- 3. Khan MAB, Hashim MJ, King JK, Govender RD, Mustafa H, Al Kaabi J. Epidemiology of type 2 diabetes—global burden of disease and forecasted trends. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020;10(1):107-111. doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.191028.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Munshi MN. Cognitive dysfunction in older adults with diabetes: what a clinician needs to know. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(4):461-467. doi: 10.2337/dc16-1229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Biessels GJ, Staekenborg S, Brunner E, Brayne C, Scheltens P. Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(1):64-74. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70284-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Cholerton B, Baker LD, Montine TJ, Craft S. Type 2 diabetes, cognition, and dementia in older adults: toward a precision health approach. Diabetes Spectr. 2016;29(4):210-219. doi: 10.2337/ds16-0041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Li W, Risacher SL, Huang E, Saykin AJ; For the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with brain atrophy and hypometabolism in the ADNI cohort. Neurology. 2016;87:595-600. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Li L, Hölscher C. Common pathological processes in Alzheimer disease and type 2 diabetes: a review. Brain Res Rev. 2007;56(2):384-402. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lyu F, Wu D, Wei C, Wu A. Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: an overview. Life Sci. 2020;254:117771. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Chohan H, Senkevich K, Patel RK, et al. Type 2 diabetes as a determinant of Parkinson’s disease risk and progression. Mov Disord. 2021;36(6):1420-1429. doi: 10.1002/mds.28551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Palta P, Schneider AL, Biessels GJ, Touradji P, Hill-Briggs F. Magnitude of cognitive dysfunction in adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of six cognitive domains and the most frequently reported neuropsychological tests within domains. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20(3):278-291. doi: 10.1017/S1355617713001483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Schwartz MW, Figlewicz DF, Kahn SE, Baskin DG, Greenwood MR, Porte D., Jr. Insulin binding to brain capillaries is reduced in genetically obese, hyperinsulinemic Zucker rats. Peptides. 1990;11(3):467-472. doi: 10.1016/0196-9781(90)90044-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Brundel M, Kappelle LJ, Biessels GJ. Brain imaging in type 2 diabetes. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24(12):1967-1981. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Craft S, Watson GS. Insulin and neurodegenerative disease: shared and specific mechanisms. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(3):169-178. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00681-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Nanayakkara N, Curtis AJ, Heritier S, et al. Impact of age at type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosis on mortality and vascular complications: systematic review and meta-analyses. Diabetologia. 2021;64(2):275-287. doi: 10.1007/s00125-020-05319-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. McCrimmon RJ, Ryan CM, Frier BM. Diabetes and cognitive dysfunction. Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2291-2299. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Yang R, Pedersen NL, Bao C, et al. Type 2 diabetes in midlife and risk of cerebrovascular disease in late life: a prospective nested case−control study in a nationwide Swedish twin cohort. Diabetologia. 2019;62(8):1403-1411. doi: 10.1007/s00125-019-4892-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Georgakis MK, Harshfield EL, Malik R, et al. Diabetes mellitus, glycemic traits, and cerebrovascular disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Neurology. 2021;96(13):e1732-e1742. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Antal B, McMahon LP, Sultan SF, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus accelerates brain aging and cognitive decline: complementary findings from UK Biobank and meta-analyses. Elife. 2022;11:e73138. doi: 10.7554/eLife.73138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Moran C, Beare R, Wang W, Callisaya M, Srikanth V; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Type 2 diabetes mellitus, brain atrophy, and cognitive decline. Neurology. 2019;92(8):e823-e830. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Arnold SE, Arvanitakis Z, Macauley-Rambach SL, et al. Brain insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer disease: concepts and conundrums. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(3):168-181. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Rotermund C, Truckenmüller FM, Schell H, Kahle PJ. Diet-induced obesity accelerates the onset of terminal phenotypes in α-synuclein transgenic mice. J Neurochem. 2014;131(6):848-858. doi: 10.1111/jnc.12813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Kimura N. Diabetes mellitus induces Alzheimer’s Disease pathology: histopathological evidence from animal models. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(4):503. doi: 10.3390/ijms17040503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Boccardi V, Murasecco I, Mecocci P. Diabetes drugs in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. Ageing Res Rev. 2019;54:100936. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Dubois B, Padovani A, Scheltens P, Rossi A, Dell’Agnello G. Timely diagnosis for Alzheimer’s disease: a literature review on benefits and challenges. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;49(3):617-631. doi: 10.3233/JAD-150692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Rasmussen J, Langerman H. Alzheimer’s disease—why we need early diagnosis. Degener Neurol Neuromuscul Dis. 2019;9:123-130. doi: 10.2147/DNND.S228939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. National plan to address Alzheimer’s disease: 2022 update. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/national-plan-2022-update. Published December 30, 2022. Accessed March 18, 2023.
- 28. Leifer BP. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical and economic benefits. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:S281-S288. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.5153.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. van Dyck CH, Swanson CJ, Aisen P, et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9-21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Grossberg GT, Tong G, Burke AD, Tariot PN. Present algorithms and future treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67(4):1157-1171. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Fernández Montenegro JM, Villarini B, Angelopoulou A, Kapetanios E, Garcia-Rodriguez J, Argyriou V. A survey of Alzheimer’s disease early diagnosis methods for cognitive assessment. Sensors. 2020;20(24):7292. doi: 10.3390/s20247292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Morovic S, Budincevic H, Govori V, Demarin V. Possibilities of dementia prevention—it is never too early to start. J Med Life. 2019;12:332-337. doi: 10.25122/jml-2019-0088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Miller T, Cudkowicz M, Shaw PJ, et al. Phase 1–2 trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(2):109-119. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2003715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Dubois B, Hampel H, Feldman HH, et al. Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: definition, natural history, and diagnostic criteria. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(3):292-323. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Bauer RM, Iverson GL, Cernich AN, Binder LM, Ruff RM, Naugle RI. Computerized Neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27(3):362-373. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acs027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Staffaroni AM, Tsoy E, Taylor J, Boxer AL, Possin KL. Digital cognitive assessments for dementia: digital assessments may enhance the efficiency of evaluations in neurology and other clinics. Pract Neurol (Fort Wash Pa). 2020;2020:24-45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Parsons TD, McMahan T, Kane R. Practice parameters facilitating adoption of advanced technologies for enhancing neuropsychological assessment paradigms. Clin Neuropsychol. 2018;32(1):16-41. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2017.1337932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Mackin RS, Insel PS, Truran D, et al. Unsupervised online neuropsychological test performance for individuals with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: results from the Brain Health Registry. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:573-582. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.05.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Germine L, Reinecke K, Chaytor NS. Digital neuropsychology: challenges and opportunities at the intersection of science and software. Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;33(2):271-286. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2018.1535662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Papp KV, Samaroo A, Chou HC, et al. Unsupervised mobile cognitive testing for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2021;13(1):e12243. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Berron D, Ziegler G, Vieweg P, et al. Feasibility of digital memory assessments in an unsupervised and remote study setting. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:892997. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.892997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Samaroo A, Amariglio RE, Burnham S, et al. Diminished learning over repeated exposures (LORE) in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2020;12(1):e12132. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Sliwinski MJ, Mogle JA, Hyun J, Munoz E, Smyth JM, Lipton RB. Reliability and validity of ambulatory cognitive assessments. Assessment. 2018;25(1):14-30. doi: 10.1177/1073191116643164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Omberg L, Chaibub Neto E, Perumal TM, et al. Remote smartphone monitoring of Parkinson’s disease and individual response to therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40:480-487. doi: 10.1038/s41587-021-00974-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Geddes MR, O’Connell ME, Fisk JD, et al. Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2020;12(1):e12111. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Papp KV, Rentz DM, Maruff P, et al. The computerized cognitive composite (C3) in an Alzheimer’s Disease secondary prevention trial. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2021;8(1):59-67. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2020.38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Bunker L, Hshieh TT, Wong B, et al. The SAGES telephone neuropsychological battery: correlation with in-person measures: in-person to telephone neuropsychology battery. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32(9):991-999. doi: 10.1002/gps.4558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Rao LA, Roberts AC, Schafer R, et al. The reliability of telepractice administration of the western aphasia battery-revised in persons with primary progressive aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31:881-895. doi: 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Madero EN, Anderson J, Bott NT, et al. Environmental distractions during unsupervised remote digital cognitive assessment. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2021;8(3):263-266. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2021.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Sabbagh MN, Boada M, Borson S, et al. Early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in an at-home setting. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7(3):171-178. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2020.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Cromer JA, Harel BT, Yu K, et al. Comparison of cognitive performance on the Cogstate Brief Battery when taken in-clinic, in-group, and unsupervised. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(4):542-558. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1054437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Backx R, Skirrow C, Dente P, Barnett JH, Cormack FK. Comparing web-based and lab-based cognitive assessment using the Cambridge neuropsychological test automated battery: a within-subjects counterbalanced study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e16792. doi: 10.2196/16792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Öhman F, Hassenstab J, Berron D, Schöll M, Papp KV. Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2021;13(1):e12217. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Öhman F, Berron D, Papp KV, et al. Unsupervised mobile app-based cognitive testing in a population-based study of older adults born 1944. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:933265. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.933265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Morrison GE, Simone CM, Ng NF, Hardy JL. Reliability and validity of the NeuroCognitive Performance Test, a web-based neuropsychological assessment. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1652. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Brooker H, Williams G, Hampshire A, et al. FLAME: a computerized neuropsychological composite for trials in early dementia. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2020;12(1):e12098. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Possin KL, Moskowitz T, Erlhoff SJ, et al. The brain health assessment for detecting and diagnosing neurocognitive disorders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(1):150-156. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Paterson TSE, Sivajohan B, Gardner S, et al. Accuracy of a Self-administered online cognitive assessment in detecting amnestic mild cognitive impairment. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2022;77:341-350. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbab097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Koyama AK, Hagan KA, Okereke OI, Weisskopf MG, Rosner B, Grodstein F. Evaluation of a self-administered computerized cognitive battery in an older population. Neuroepidemiology. 2015;45(4):264-272. doi: 10.1159/000439592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Cogstate. Cognigram: cogstate brief battery. https://www.cogstate.com/healthcare/cognigram/. Published 2022. Accessed April 12, 2023.
- 61. Templeton JM, Poellabauer C, Schneider S. Enhancement of neurocognitive assessments using smartphone capabilities: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(6):e15517. doi: 10.2196/15517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Su D, Liu Z, Jiang X, et al. Simple smartphone-based assessment of gait characteristics in Parkinson disease: validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(2):e25451. doi: 10.2196/25451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Robbins RN, Brown H, Ehlers A, et al. A smartphone app to screen for HIV-related neurocognitive impairment. J Mob Technol Med. 2014;3(1):23-36. doi: 10.7309/jmtm.3.1.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Dagum P. Digital biomarkers of cognitive function. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1(1):10. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0018-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Brouillette RM, Foil H, Fontenot S, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of a smartphone based application for the assessment of cognitive function in the elderly. PloS One.2013;8(6):e65925. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Manor B, Yu W, Zhu H, et al. Smartphone app–based assessment of gait during normal and dual-task walking: demonstration of validity and reliability. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(1):e36. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Daniëls NEM, Bartels SL, Verhagen SJW, Van Knippenberg RJM, De Vugt ME, Delespaul PAEG. Digital assessment of working memory and processing speed in everyday life: feasibility, validation, and lessons-learned. Internet Interv. 2020;19:100300. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2019.100300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Espay AJ, Hausdorff JM, Sánchez-Ferro Á, et al. A roadmap for implementation of patient-centered digital outcome measures in Parkinson’s disease obtained using mobile health technologies. Mov Disord. 2019;34(5):657-663. doi: 10.1002/mds.27671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Berron D, Andersson F, Janelidze S, Stomrud E, Hansson O. Remote mobile app-based memory assessments reflect traditional memory measures and are sensitive to measures of tau pathology. https://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/files/files/CTAD%202020%20Abstracts%20final.pdf. Published November 4, 2020. Accessed April 12, 2023.
- 70. Hassenstab J, Aschenbrenner AJ, Balota DA, et al. Remote cognitive assessment approaches in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN): using digital technology to drive clinical innovation in brain-behavior relationships: a new era in neuropsychology. Alzheimers Dement Diagn Assess Dis Monit. 2020;16(suppl 6):e038144. doi: 10.1002/alz.038144. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Nicosia J, Aschenbrenner AJ, Balota DA, et al. Unsupervised high-frequency smartphone-based cognitive assessments are reliable, valid, and feasible in older adults at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2022: 1-13. doi: 10.1017/S135561772200042X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Stricker NH, Stricker JL, Karstens AJ, et al. A novel computer adaptive word list memory test optimized for remote assessment: Psychometric properties and associations with neurodegenerative biomarkers in older women without dementia. Alzheimer’s & Dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands).2022;14(1):e12299. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Gorniak SL, Ray H, Lee BC, Wang J. Cognitive–motor impairment in manual tasks in adults with type 2 diabetes. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2020;40(2):113-121. doi: 10.1177/1539449219880536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Khan KS, Pop-Busui R, Devantier L, et al. Falls in individuals with type 2 diabetes; a cross-sectional study on the impact of motor dysfunction, postural instability and diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabet Med. 2021;38(9):e14470. doi: 10.1111/dme.14470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. McGarry A, Biglan KM. Preclinical motor manifestations of Huntington disease. In: Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol. 144. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017:93-98. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801893-4.00007-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Benbrika S, Desgranges B, Eustache F, Viader F. Cognitive, emotional and psychological manifestations in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at baseline and overtime: a review. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:951. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Burn DJ, Rowan EN, Allan LM, Molloy S, O’Brien JT, McKeith IG. Motor subtype and cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease, Parkinson’s disease with dementia, and dementia with Lewy bodies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77(5):585-589. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.081711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Gold M, Amatniek J, Carrillo MC, et al. Digital technologies as biomarkers, clinical outcomes assessment, and recruitment tools in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2018;4:234-242. doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2018.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Zhan A, Mohan S, Tarolli C, et al. Using smartphones and machine learning to quantify Parkinson disease severity: the mobile Parkinson disease score. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(7):876. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Robin J, Xu M, Kaufman LD, Simpson W. Using digital speech assessments to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. Front Digit Health. 2021;3:749758. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.749758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Chen L, Asgari M, Gale R, Wild K, Dodge H, Kaye J. Improving the assessment of mild cognitive impairment in advanced age with a novel multi-feature automated speech and language analysis of verbal fluency. Front Psychol. 2020;11:535. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Tang F, Chen J, Dodge HH, Zhou J. The joint effects of acoustic and linguistic markers for early identification of mild cognitive impairment. Front Digit Health. 2022;3:702772. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.702772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Dodge HH, Zhu J, Mattek NC, et al. Web-enabled conversational interactions as a method to improve cognitive functions: results of a 6-week randomized controlled trial. Alzheimers Dement Transl Res Clin Interv. 2015;1(1):1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2015.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Toth L, Hoffmann I, Gosztolya G, et al. A speech recognition-based solution for the automatic detection of mild cognitive impairment from spontaneous speech. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2018;15(2):130-138. doi: 10.2174/1567205014666171121114930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Mundt JC, Snyder PJ, Cannizzaro MS, Chappie K, Geralts DS. Voice acoustic measures of depression severity and treatment response collected via interactive voice response (IVR) technology. J Neurolinguistics. 2007;20(1):50-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.04.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Yeung A, Iaboni A, Rochon E, et al. Correlating natural language processing and automated speech analysis with clinician assessment to quantify speech-language changes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021;13(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s13195-021-00848-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Robin J, Kaufman LD, Simpson W. Evaluation of speech-based digital biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. https://winterlightlabs.com/assets/publications/CTAD_2020_AD_evaluation.pdf. Published November 4, 2020. Accessed April 12, 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 88. Dodge HH, Mattek N, Gregor M, et al. Social markers of mild cognitive impairment: proportion of word counts in free conversational speech. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2015;12(6):513-519. doi: 10.2174/1567205012666150530201917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Imre N, Balogh R, Gosztolya G, et al. Temporal speech parameters indicate early cognitive decline in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2022;36(2):148-155. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Staffaroni AM, Taylor JC, Clark AL, et al. A remote smartphone cognitive testing battery for frontotemporal dementia: completion rate, reliability, and validity. Alzheimers Dement Diagn Assess Dis Monit. 2021;17(suppl 6):e056136. doi: 10.1002/alz.056136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Oravecz Z, Harrington KD, Hakun JG, et al. Accounting for retest effects in cognitive testing with the Bayesian double exponential model via intensive measurement burst designs. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:897343. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.897343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Scott SB, Graham-Engeland JE, Engeland CG, et al. The effects of stress on cognitive aging, physiology and emotion (ESCAPE) project. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0497-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Sliwinski MJ. Measurement-burst designs for social health research: longitudinal measurement-burst design. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008;2(1):245-261. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00043.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Possin KL, Rosen AC. The ethics of using caregivers as cognitive testers. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;90(4):1429-1431. doi: 10.3233/JAD-220862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Smith A. Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/. Published April 3, 2014. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 96. Share of those 65 and older who are tech users has grown in the past decade. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3HZd2ao. Published January 13, 2022. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 97. Vogels E. Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/. Published June 22, 2021. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 98. Vogels E. Some digital divides persist between rural, urban and suburban America. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/19/some-digital-divides-persist-between-rural-urban-and-suburban-america/. Published August 19, 2021. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 99. Perrin A, Duggan M. Americans’ internet access: 2000-2015. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/. Published June 26, 2015. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 100. Vogels E. Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace digital life. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/09/us-generations-technology-use/. Published September 9, 2019. Accessed March 18, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 101. Pew Research Center. Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/. Published April 7, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 102. Silver L. Smartphone ownership is growing rapidly around the world, but not always equally. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/. Published February 5, 2019. Accessed March 31, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 103. Perrin A. Mobile technology and home broadband 2021. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/06/03/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2021/. Published June 3, 2021. Accessed March 31, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 104. Passell E, Strong RW, Rutter LA, et al. Cognitive test scores vary with choice of personal digital device. Behav Res Met.2021; 53(6):2544–2557. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01597-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Miller JB, Barr WB. The technology crisis in neuropsychology. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2017;32(5):541-554. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acx050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Klonoff DC. Cybersecurity for connected diabetes devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(5):1143-1147. doi: 10.1177/1932296815583334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Dodge HH, Mattek NC, Austin D, Hayes TL, Kaye JA. In-home walking speeds and variability trajectories associated with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2012;78(24):1946-1952. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318259e1de. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Rawtaer I, Mahendran R, Kua EH, et al. Early detection of mild cognitive impairment with in-home sensors to monitor behavior patterns in community-dwelling senior citizens in Singapore: cross-sectional feasibility study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e16854. doi: 10.2196/16854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Nef T, Urwyler P, Büchler M, et al. Evaluation of Three state-of-the-art classifiers for recognition of activities of daily living from smart home ambient data. Sensors. 2015;15(5):11725-11740. doi: 10.3390/s150511725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Wu CY, Dodge HH, Reynolds C, et al. In-home mobility frequency and stability in older adults living alone with or without MCI: introduction of new metrics. Front Digit Health. 2021;3:764510. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.764510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Akl A, Snoek J, Mihailidis A. Unobtrusive detection of mild cognitive impairment in older adults through home monitoring. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017;21(2):339-348. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2512273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Jansen CP, Diegelmann M, Schnabel EL, Wahl HW, Hauer K. Life-space and movement behavior in nursing home residents: results of a new sensor-based assessment and associated factors. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0430-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Urwyler P, Stucki R, Rampa L, Müri R, Mosimann UP, Nef T. Cognitive impairment categorized in community-dwelling older adults with and without dementia using in-home sensors that recognise activities of daily living. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):42084. doi: 10.1038/srep42084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Suzuki T, Murase S, Tanaka T, Okazawa T. New approach for the early detection of dementia by recording in-house activities. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13(1):41-44. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.0033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Wu CY, Beattie Z, Mattek N, Sharma N, Kaye J, Dodge HH. Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2021;7(1):e12220. doi: 10.1002/trc2.12220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Lyons BE, Austin D, Seelye A, et al. Pervasive computing technologies to continuously assess Alzheimer’s disease progression and intervention efficacy. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:102. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Suzuki T, Murase S. Influence of outdoor activity and indoor activity on cognition decline: use of an infrared sensor to measure activity. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(6):686-690. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Knapstad MK, Steihaug OM, Aaslund MK, et al. Reduced walking speed in subjective and mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42(3):E122-E128. doi: 10.1519/JPT.0000000000000157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Kikkert LHJ, Vuillerme N, van Campen JP, Hortobágyi T, Lamoth CJ. Walking ability to predict future cognitive decline in old adults: a scoping review. Ageing Res Rev. 2016;27:1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Rosso AL, Metti AL, Faulkner K, et al. Complex walking tasks and risk for cognitive decline in high functioning older adults. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71(suppl 1):S65-S73. doi: 10.3233/JAD-181140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Austin D, Hayes TL, Kaye J, Mattek N, Pavel M. Unobtrusive monitoring of the longitudinal evolution of in-home gait velocity data with applications to elder care. Ann Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6495-6498. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Hackett RA, Davies-Kershaw H, Cadar D, Orrell M, Steptoe A. Walking speed, cognitive function, and dementia risk in the English longitudinal study of ageing: walking speed, cognition, & dementia risk. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(9):1670-1675. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Akl A, Chikhaoui B, Mattek N, Kaye J, Austin D, Mihailidis A. Clustering home activity distributions for automatic detection of mild cognitive impairment in older adults. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ. 2016;8(4):437-451. doi: 10.3233/AIS-160385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Beattie Z, Miller LM, Almirola C, et al. The collaborative aging research using technology initiative: an open, sharable, technology-agnostic platform for the research community. Digit Biomark. 2020;4(suppl 1):100-118. doi: 10.1159/000512208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Hayes TL, Larimer N, Adami A, Kaye JA. Medication adherence in healthy elders: small cognitive changes make a big difference. J Aging Health. 2009;21(4):567-580. doi: 10.1177/0898264309332836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Kumpik DP, Santos-Rodriguez R, Selwood J, et al. The use of home-based conversations for detecting early dementia: protocol for the CUBOId TV task. medRxix. 2022. doi: 10.1101/2022.05.25.22275419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Fraser KC, Komeili M. Measuring Cognitive Status from Speech in a Smart Home Environment. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag. 2021;24(6):13-21. doi: 10.1109/MIM.2021.9513645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Fredericks EM, Bowers KM, Price KA, Hariri RH. CAL: a smart home environment for monitoring cognitive decline. Paper presented at 2018 IEEE 38th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems; 2-6 July 2018; Vienna, Austria. doi: 10.1109/ICDCS.2018.00155. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Bayat S, Babulal GM, Schindler SE, et al. GPS driving: a digital biomarker for preclinical Alzheimer disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021;13(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s13195-021-00852-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Davis JD, Papandonatos GD, Miller LA, et al. Road test and naturalistic driving performance in healthy and cognitively impaired older adults: does environment matter? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2056-2062. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04206.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Buchman AS, Dawe RJ, Leurgans SE, et al. Different combinations of mobility metrics derived from a wearable sensor are associated with distinct health outcomes in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(6):1176-1183. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glz160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Hubble RP, Naughton GA, Silburn PA, Cole MH. Wearable sensor use for assessing standing balance and walking stability in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0123705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Hernando D, Roca S, Sancho J, Alesanco Bailón ÁR. Validation of the apple watch for heart rate variability measurements during relax and mental stress in healthy subjects. Sensors. 2018;18(8):E2619. doi: 10.3390/s18082619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Karmen CL, Reisfeld MA, McIntyre MK, Timmermans R, Frishman W. The clinical value of heart rate monitoring using an Apple watch. Cardiol Rev. 2019;27(2):60-62. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Coutts LV, Plans D, Brown AW, Collomosse J. Deep learning with wearable based heart rate variability for prediction of mental and general health. J Biomed Inform. 2020;112:103610. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Saif N, Yan P, Niotis K, et al. Feasibility of using a wearable biosensor device in patients at risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7:104-111. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2019.39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Cote AC, Phelps RJ, Kabiri NS, Bhangu JS, Thomas KK. Evaluation of wearable technology in dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med. 2021;7:501104. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.501104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Paolillo EW, Lee SY, VandeBunte A, et al. Wearable use in an observational study among older adults: adherence, feasibility, and effects of clinicodemographic factors. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:884208. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.884208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. VandeBunte A, Gontrum E, Goldberger L, et al. Physical activity measurement in older adults: wearables versus self-report. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:869790. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.869790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Kaye J, Mattek N, Dodge HH, et al. Unobtrusive measurement of daily computer use to detect mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2014;10(1):10-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Seelye A, Hagler S, Mattek N, et al. Computer mouse movement patterns: a potential marker of mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement Diagn Assess Dis Monit. 2015;1(4):472-480. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2015.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Bernstein JPK, Dorociak KE, Mattek N, et al. Passively-measured routine home computer activity and application use can detect mild cognitive impairment and correlate with important cognitive functions in older adulthood. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;81(3):1053-1064. doi: 10.3233/JAD-210049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Lang C, Gries C, Lindenberg KS, et al. Monitoring the motor phenotype in Huntington’s disease by analysis of keyboard typing during real life computer use. J Huntingtons Dis. 2021;10(2):259-268. doi: 10.3233/JHD-200451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Turner A. How many smartphones are in the world? https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20number%20of, world’s%20population%20owning%20a%20smartphone. Published November 1, 2022. Accessed November 14, 2022.
- 145. SensorKit: retrieve data and derived metrics from an iPhone’s sensors, or from a paired Apple Watch. Date unknown. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sensorkit. Accessed December 10, 2022.
- 146. Fitbit. Web API reference. Date unknown. https://dev.fitbit.com/build/reference/web-api/. Accessed December 10, 2022.
- 147. Onnela JP, Dixon C, Griffin K, et al. Beiwe: A data collection platform for high-throughput digital phenotyping. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(68):3417. doi: 10.21105/joss.03417. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Wang X, Vouk N, Heaukulani C, et al. HOPES: an integrative digital phenotyping platform for data collection, monitoring, and machine learning. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e23984. doi: 10.2196/23984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Torous J, Kiang MV, Lorme J, Onnela JP. New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(2):e16. doi: 10.2196/mental.5165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Onnela JP. Digital phenotyping and Beiwe research platform. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/onnela-lab/beiwe-research-platform/. Published 2021. Accessed November 29, 2021.
- 151. Datacubed Health. Patient engagement and data collection for decentralized trials. https://datacubed.cn/. Published February 9, 2022. Accessed April 13, 2023.
- 152. Neuropsychological assessments go digital. https://progress.im/en/content/neuropsychological-assessments-go-digital. Published August 8, 2022. Accessed December 10, 2022.
- 153. Digital biomarkers of FTD: how to move from tech tinkering to trials? https://www.alzforum.org/news/conference-coverage/digital-biomarkers-ftd-how-move-tech-tinkering-trials. Published June 28, 2022. Accessed December 10, 2022.
- 154. Parsons T, Duffield T. Paradigm shift toward digital neuropsychology and high-dimensional neuropsychological assessments: review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e23777. doi: 10.2196/23777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Farrington C. Wearable technologies and stigma in diabetes: the role of medical aesthetics. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(7):566. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)00075-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Liu NF, Brown AS, Folias AE, et al. Stigma in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2017;35(1):27-34. doi: 10.2337/cd16-0020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Hanes SJ, et al. Optimal use of diabetes devices: clinician perspectives on barriers and adherence to device use. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(3):484-492. doi: 10.1177/1932296816688010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Zhang Z, Giordani B, Chen W. Fidelity and feasibility of a multicomponent physical activity intervention in a retirement community. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(4):394-399. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2019.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Lukkahatai N, Soivong P, Li D, et al. Feasibility of using mobile technology to improve physical activity among people living with diabetes in Asia. Asian Pac Isl Nurs J. 2021;5(4):236-247. doi: 10.31372/20200504.1110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Campo- Prieto P, Cancela-Carral JM, Rodríguez -Fuentes G. Wearable immersive virtual reality device for promoting physical activity in Parkinson’s disease patients. Sensors. 2022;22(9):3302. doi: 10.3390/s22093302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Tarraf RC, Suter E, Arain M, et al. Using integrated technology to create quality care for older adults: a feasibility study. Inform Health Soc Care. 2019;44(3):246-261. doi: 10.1080/17538157.2018.1496090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Owens AP, Ballard C, Beigi M, et al. Implementing remote memory clinics to enhance clinical care during and after COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:579934. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.579934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]