Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 22;56(12):6227–6238. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15860

TABLE 1.

Demographic, neuropsychological, and CSF data

Variables CN Obj‐SCD MCI F/χ 2 p
(N = 42) (N = 29) (N = 55)
Demographic factors
Age 71.29 (6.85) 71.97 (6.47) 73.58 (6.66) 1.49 0.230
Sex (F:M) 24:18 14:15 27:28 0.78 0.676
Education 16.36 (2.55) 16.59 (2.73) 15.76 (2.49) 1.18 0.311
GDS 1.26 (1.36) 1.14 (0.95) 1.55 (1.45) 1.07 0.345
Neuropsychological measures
MMSE 28.74 (1.21) 28.59 (1.59) 27.85 (1.79) 4.31 0.015 b
Memory
AVLT delayed recall 8.36 (2.79) 5.21 (3.08) 3.15 (3.34) 33.55 <0.001 a , b , c
AVLT recognition 12.76 (1.85) 11.79 (2.11) 8.36 (3.59) 32.87 <0.001 b , c
Language
SVF (animal) 22.05 (4.03) 20.59 (4.08) 17.29 (4.45) 15.98 <0.001 b , c
BNT 28.52 (1.44) 27.72 (1.81) 26.60 (3.66) 6.14 0.003 b
Attention/executive function
TMT part A (s) 29.48 (7.71) 31.86 (6.59) 44.91 (17.26) 20.49 <0.001bc
TMT part B (s) 67.00 (17.75) 89.07 (40.75) 125.96 (68.46) 16.86 <0.001 a , b , c
Process scores
AVLT learning slope 1.33 (0.39) 0.91 (0.45) 0.74 (0.46) 22.39 <0.001 a , b
AVLT retroactive interference 0.80 (0.17) 0.69 (0.27) 0.59 (0.24) 10.96 <0.001 b
AVLT intrusion errors 2.24 (2.38) 3.83 (2.90) 3.51 (3.49) 3.02 0.052
CSF biomarkers *
1–42 (pg/ml) 195.84 (54.64) 170.81 (48.35) 182.35 (56.57) 1.74 0.180
p‐tau181 (pg/ml) 37.71 (21.99) 42.98 (18.05) 41.80 (26.97) 0.49 0.617
t‐tau (pg/ml) 77.37 (50.06) 86.88 (47.00) 81.16 (43.81) 0.33 0.719
Head motion (FD value) 0.16 (0.07) 0.14 (0.07) 0.16 (0.08) 0.41 0.664

Note: Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation), number of participants.

Abbreviations: CN, Cognitively normal; Obj‐SCD, Objectively‐defined Subtle Cognitive Decline; MCI, Mild Cognitive Impairment; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; MMSE, Mini‐Mental State Examination; AVLT, Auditory Verbal Learning Test; SVF, Semantic Verbal Fluency; BNT, Boston Naming Test; TMT, Trail‐Making Test; CSF: Cerebrospinal fluid; FD, framewise displacement.

*

115 participants (CN = 37, Obj‐SCD = 28, MCI = 50) have CSF biomarkers.

a

Post hoc analysis further revealed the source of ANOVA difference (CN vs. Obj‐SCD) (p < 0.05, significant difference between the two groups).

b

Post hoc analysis further revealed the source of ANOVA difference (CN vs. MCI) (p < 0.05, significant difference between the two groups).

c

Post hoc analysis further revealed the source of ANOVA difference (Obj‐SCD vs. MCI) (p < 0.05, significant difference between the two groups).