Fig. 2. Comparisons between AD/LB groups and independent effects of LB, Aβ and tau pathologies on cross-sectional clinical outcomes.

a–j, Significant effects (two-sided) were examined with linear regression models using either two AD/LB groups (a–e) or all three pathologies binarized (f–j) in the same model (to examine independent effects) while adjusting for age, sex and education (motor function was not adjusted for education). a,f, Global cognition. b,g, Memory. c,h, Attention/executive function. d,i, Smell. e,j, Motor function. Outcomes were z-scored cognitive tests (a–c,f–h), smell identification test (d,i) and an informant-based motor questionnaire (e,j). a–e, Boxes show interquartile range, horizontal lines are medians and whiskers were plotted using the Tukey method. f–j, Dot/center denotes estimate of the pathology and error bars 95% CI. Red indicates significant association between pathology and worse performance. In total, 941 participants were AD^–/LB^–, 74 AD^–/LB⁺, 147 AD⁺/LB^– and 20 AD⁺/LB⁺; 94 were LB⁺, 304 Aβ⁺ and 195 tau⁺. Extended Data Fig. 2a,b shows the effect on motor function using the UPDRS-III scale (no significant effect of LB pathology). Statistical analyses with corrections for multiple comparisons are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1 (all effects of LB pathology were significant following correction). The effect of LB on clinical outcomes with/without adjustment for Aβ and tau is shown in Extended Data Table 1. Missing data shown in Supplementary Table 2. h, When restricting the analysis of attention/executive function to participants with available SMDT data (n = 854) the results were consistent, showing a significant effect for Aβ (P = 0.01) but not for tau and LB. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 (two-sided).