Abstract
Limited time for patient encounters prevents reliable evaluation of all neurological functions in routine clinical practice. Quantifying neurological disability in a patient-autonomous manner via smartphones may remedy this problem, if such tests provide reliable, disease-relevant information.
We developed a smartphone version of the cognitive processing speed test, the Symbol-Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and assessed its clinical utility. The traditional SDMT uses identical symbol-number codes, allowing memorization after repeated trials. In the phone app, the symbol-number codes are randomly generated.
In 154 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and 39 healthy volunteers (HV), traditional and smartphone SDMT have good agreement (Lin’s coefficient of concordance [CCC] = 0.84) and comparable test-retest variance. In subjects with available volumetric MRI and digitalized neurological examinations (112 MS, 12 HV), the SDMT scores were highly associated with T2 lesion load and brain parenchymal fraction, when controlled for relevant clinical characteristics. The smartphone SDMT association with clinical/imaging features was stronger (R2 = 0.75, p < 0.0001) than traditional SDMT (R2 = 0.65, p < 0.0001). In the longitudinal subcohort, improvements from testing repetition (learning effects), were identifiable using non-linear regression in 14/16 subjects and, on average, peaked after 8 trials. Averaging several post-learning SDMT results significantly lowers the threshold for detecting true decline in test performance.
In conclusion, smartphone, self-administered SDMT is a reliable substitute of the traditional SDMT for measuring processing speed in MS patients. Granular measurements at home increase sensitivity to detect true performance decline in comparison to sporadic assessments in the clinic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03109288, NCT00794352
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data and script used for all analyses can be found in the github link (see supplementary file for the link).
