Table 2.

Results of Linear Mixed Models for Each Cognitive Domain and Global Cognition^a

	Treatment (G biloba) Effect: Overall Difference in z Scores vs Placebo, Mean (95% CI)	Annual Rate of Change in z Scores, Mean (95% CI)		Treatment × Time Interaction: Annual Difference in Rates of Change Between G biloba and Placebo, Mean (95% CI)
		Placebo	G biloba
Memory	0.034 (−0.019 to 0.086)	0.041 (0.032 to 0.050)	0.043 (0.034 to 0.051)	0.002 (−0.010 to 0.013)
P value	.21	<.001	<.001	.79
Attention	0.037 (−0.012 to 0.086)	0.048 (0.041 to 0.054)	0.043 (0.037 to 0.050)	−0.004 (−0.013 to 0.005)
P value	.14	<.001	<.001	.37
Visuospatial abilities	0.038 (−0.017 to 0.093)	0.118 (0.108 to 0.128)	0.107 (0.097 to 0.117)	−0.011 (−0.022 to 0.001)
P value	.17	<.001	<.001	.08
Language	−0.041 (−0.093 to 0.011)	0.041 (0.033 to 0.048)	0.045 (0.037 to 0.054)	0.005 (−0.005 to 0.014)
P value	.13	<.001	<.001	.33
Executive functions	0.013 (−0.042 to 0.069)	0.089 (0.082 to 0.096)	0.092 (0.086 to 0.099)	0.003 (−0.006 to 0.013)
P value	.64	<.001	<.001	.49
Global cognition	0.015 (−0.018 to 0.047)	0.071 (0.065 to 0.076)	0.069 (0.064 to 0.074)	−0.002 (−0.009 to 0.005)
P value	.38	<.001	<.001	.65

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; G biloba, Ginkgo biloba.

^aHigher coefficients indicate worse test performance. Adjusted for age, sex, nonwhite race, years of education, mild cognitive impairment, and depression score at baseline. Scores are derived from the mean of 2 tests for each cognitive domain, with global cognition representing the mean of the 5 cognitive domain scores. (See Table 3 for estimated annual rates of change for each individual test.) As described in the Methods, test scores were transformed so that higher scores were worse and skewed measures were log-transformed. Scores were then standardized into z scores. Annual rates of change in each cognitive domain are presented. Results of the other components of the model are shown in the eTable.