The Stricker Learning Span (SLS) is a computer-adaptive word list memory test specifically designed for remote assessment and self-administration on a web-based multi-device platform (Mayo Test Drive). Given recent evidence suggesting the prominence of learning impairment in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the SLS places greater emphasis on learning than delayed memory compared to traditional word list memory tests (see Stricker et al., Neuropsychology in press for review and test details). The primary study aim was to establish criterion validity of the SLS by comparing the ability of the remotely-administered SLS and inperson administered Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) to differentiate biomarkerdefined groups in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum.

Mayo Clinic Study of Aging CU participants (N=319; mean age=71, SD=11; mean education=16, SD=2; 47% female) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (∼0.5 months from in-person visit). Brain amyloid and brain tau PET scans were available within 3 years. Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n=110) or not (A-, n=209), and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n=43) vs no evidence of AD pathology (A-T-, n=181). Primary neuropsychological outcome variables were sum of trials for both the SLS and AVLT. Secondary outcome variables examined comparability of learning (1-5 total) and delay performances. Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences and Hedge’s G effect sizes were derived, with and without adjusting for demographic variables (age, education, sex).

Both SLS and AVLT performances were worse in the biomarker positive relative to biomarker negative groups (unadjusted p’s<.05). Because biomarker positive groups were significantly older than biomarker negative groups, group differences were attenuated after adjusting for demographic variables, but SLS remained significant for A+ vs A- and for A+T+ vs A-T- comparisons (adjusted p’s<.05) and AVLT approached significance (p’s .05-.10). The effect sizes for the SLS were slightly better (qualitatively, no statistical comparison) for separating biomarker-defined CU groups in comparison to AVLT. For A+ vs A- and A+T+ vs A-T- comparisons, unadjusted effect sizes for SLS were -0.53 and -0.81 and for AVLT were -0.47 and -0.61, respectively; adjusted effect sizes for SLS were -0.25 and -0.42 and for AVLT were -0.19 and -0.26, respectively. In secondary analyses, learning and delay variables were similar in terms of ability to separate biomarker groups. For example, unadjusted effect sizes for SLS learning (-.80) was similar to SLS delay (.76), and AVLT learning (-.58) was similar to AVLT 30-minute delay (-.55) for the A+T+ vs AT- comparison.

Remotely administered SLS performed similarly to the in-person-administered AVLT in its ability to separate biomarker-defined groups in CU individuals, providing evidence of criterion validity. The SLS showed significantly worse performance in A+ and A+T+ groups (relative to A- and A-T-groups) in this CU sample after demographic adjustment, suggesting potential sensitivity to detecting transitional cognitive decline in preclinical AD. Measures emphasizing learning should be given equal consideration as measures of delayed memory in AD-focused studies, particularly in the preclinical phase.

Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web-based multi-device (smartphone, tablet, personal computer) platform optimized for remote self-administered cognitive assessment that includes a computer-adaptive word list memory test (Stricker Learning Span; SLS; Stricker et al., 2022; Stricker et al., in press) and a measure of processing speed (Symbols Test: Wilks et al., 2021). Study aims were to determine criterion validity of MTD by comparing the ability of the MTD raw composite and in-person administered cognitive measures to differentiate biomarkerdefined groups in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum.

Mayo Clinic Study of Aging CU participants (N=319; mean age=71, SD=11, range=37-94; mean education=16, SD=2, range=6-20; 47% female) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (∼0.5 months from in-person visit). Brain amyloid and brain tau PET scans were available within 3 years. Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n=110) or not (A-, n=209), and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n=43) or with no evidence of AD pathology (A-T-, n=181). Primary outcome variables were MTD raw composite (SLS sum of trials + an accuracy-weighted Symbols response time measure), Global-z (average of 9 in-person neuropsychological measures) and an in-person screening measure (Kokmen Short Test of Mental Status, STMS; which is like the MMSE). Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences and Hedge’s G effect sizes were derived, with and without adjusting for demographic variables (age, education, sex).

Remotely administered MTD raw composite showed comparable to slightly larger effect sizes compared to Global-z. Unadjusted effect sizes for MTD raw composite for differentiating A+ vs. A- and A+T+ vs. A-T- groups, respectively, were -0.57 and -0.84 and effect sizes for Global-z were -0.54 and -0.73 (all p’s<.05). Because biomarker positive groups were significantly older than biomarker negative groups, group differences were attenuated after adjusting for demographic variables, but MTD raw composite remained significant for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.35, p=.007); Global-z did not reach significance for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.19, p=.08). Neither composite reached significance for adjusted analyses for the A+ vs A- comparison (MTD raw composite adjusted effect size= -.22, p=.06; Global-z adjusted effect size= -.08, p=.47). Results were the same for an alternative MTD composite using traditional z-score averaging methods, but the raw score method is preferred for comparability to other screening measures. The STMS screening measure did not differentiate biomarker groups in any analyses (unadjusted and adjusted p’s>.05; d’s -0.23 to 0.05).

Remotely administered MTD raw composite shows at least similar ability to separate biomarker-defined groups in CU individuals as a Global-z for person-administered measures within a neuropsychological battery, providing evidence of criterion validity. Both the MTD raw composite and Global-z showed greater ability to separate biomarker positive from negative CU groups compared to a typical screening measure (STMS) that was unable to differentiate these groups. MTD may be useful as a screening measure to aid early detection of Alzheimer’s pathological changes.

The Stricker Learning Span (SLS) is a computer-adaptive digital word list memory test specifically designed for remote assessment and self-administration on a web-based multi-device platform (Mayo Test Drive). We aimed to establish criterion validity of the SLS by comparing its ability to differentiate biomarker-defined groups to the person-administered Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT).

Participants (N = 353; mean age = 71, SD = 11; 93% cognitively unimpaired [CU]) completed the AVLT during an in-person visit, the SLS remotely (within 3 months) and had brain amyloid and tau PET scans available (within 3 years). Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (amyloid PET positive, A+, n = 125) or not (A-, n = 228), and those with biological AD (amyloid and tau PET positive, A+T+, n = 55) vs no evidence of AD pathology (A−T−, n = 195). Analyses were repeated among CU participants only.

The SLS and AVLT showed similar ability to differentiate biomarker-defined groups when comparing AUROCs (p’s > .05). In logistic regression models, SLS contributed significantly to predicting biomarker group beyond age, education, and sex, including when limited to CU participants. Medium (A− vs A+) to large (A−T− vs A+T+) unadjusted effect sizes were observed for both SLS and AVLT. Learning and delay variables were similar in terms of ability to separate biomarker groups.

Remotely administered SLS performed similarly to in-person-administered AVLT in its ability to separate biomarker-defined groups, providing evidence of criterion validity. Results suggest the SLS may be sensitive to detecting subtle objective cognitive decline in preclinical AD.

Identifying childhood predictors of binge eating and understanding risk mechanisms could help improve prevention and detection efforts. The aim of this study was to examine whether features of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as childhood eating disturbances, predicted binge eating later in adolescence.

We studied specific risk factors for the development of binge eating during mid-adolescence among 7120 males and females from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a cohort study of children in the UK, using data from multiple informants to develop structural equation models. Repeated assessment of eating disturbances during childhood (mid-childhood overeating, late-childhood overeating and early-adolescent strong desire for food), as well as teacher- and parent-reported hyperactivity/inattention during mid- and late childhood, were considered as possible predictors of mid-adolescent binge eating.

Prevalence of binge eating during mid-adolescence in our sample was 11.6%. The final model of predictors of binge eating during mid-adolescence included direct effects of late-childhood overeating [standardized estimate 0.145, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.038–0.259, p = 0.009] and early-adolescent strong desire for food (standardized estimate 0.088, 95% CI −0.002 to 0.169, p = 0.05). Hyperactivity/inattention during late childhood indirectly predicted binge eating during mid-adolescence (standardized estimate 0.085, 95% CI 0.007–0.128, p = 0.03) via late-childhood overeating and early-adolescent strong desire for food.

Our findings indicate that early ADHD symptoms, in addition to an overeating phenotype, contribute to risk for adolescent binge eating. These findings lend support to the potential role of hyperactivity/inattention in the development of overeating and binge eating.