Fig [4A-B]. Correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio and
performance on [D Word] cognitive test after controlling for age, sex, education,
and CDR Box Sum score as covariates. Additionally, the effect of (A) ApoE4
(n=119) or (B) monogenic disease carrier (n=120) statuses were also included
(red: genetic mutation, black: no genetic mutation). Importantly, neither ApoE4
nor monogenic disease carrier status had a significant interaction with CSF
monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio on [D Word] performance. The plotted lines show the
best fit for the corresponding model’s prediction of each subject. There
was a significant negative correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio
and [D Word] performance when ApoE4 status is included as a covariate (p <
0.05) and when monogenic disease carrier status was included as a covariate (p
< 0.05).
Fig [4C-D]. Correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio and
performance on [L Word] cognitive test after controlling for age, sex, education,
and CDR Box Sum score as covariates. Additionally, the effect of (C) ApoE4
(n=118) or (D) monogenic disease carrier (n=119) statuses were also included
(red: genetic mutation, black: no genetic mutation). Importantly, neither ApoE4
nor monogenic disease carrier status had a significant interaction with CSF
monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio on [L Word] performance. The plotted lines show the
best fit for the corresponding model’s prediction of each subject. There
was a significant negative correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio
and [L Word] performance when ApoE4 status is included as a covariate (p <
0.05) and when monogenic disease carrier status was included as a covariate (p
< 0.05).
Fig [4E-F]. Correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio and
performance on [F Word] cognitive test after controlling for age, sex, education,
and CDR Box Sum score as covariates. Additionally, the effect of (E) ApoE4
(n=118) or (F) monogenic disease carrier (n=119) statuses were also included
(red: genetic mutation, black: no genetic mutation). Importantly, neither ApoE4
nor monogenic disease carrier status had a significant interaction with CSF
monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio on [F Word] performance. The plotted lines show the
best fit for the corresponding model’s prediction of each subject. There
was a significant negative correlation between CSF monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio
and [F Word] performance when ApoE4 status is included as a covariate (p <
0.05) and when monogenic disease carrier status was included as a covariate (p
< 0.05).