Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Nov 13;33(2):424.e1–424.10. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.09.027

Table 2.

Effects of volume of striatum and hippocampus in model for prediction of cognitive decline

Full sample (n=477) No dementia sample (n=347)
Model: Effects a: F-value p-value F-value p-value
Hippocampus HIPP quartiles 9.8 < 0.0001 5.4 0.0010
Age * HIPP quartiles 12.8 < 0.0001 6.4 0.0003
N. accumbens NACC quartiles 14.9 <0.0001 6.5 0.0002
HIPP quartiles 12.7 < 0.0001 2.9 0.0352
Age * NACC quartiles 17.1 < 0.0001 7.3 <0.0001
Caudate nucleus CN quartiles 0.6 0.6460 1.5 0.2186
Hipp quartiles 19.5 < 0.0001 3.8 0.0101
Age * CN quartiles 0.5 0.6512 1.5 0.2228
Putamen PUT quartiles 1.1 0.3644 1.6 0.1858
HIPP quartiles 15.8 < 0.0001 3.7 0.0123
Age * PUT quartiles 1.4 0.2540 1.7 0.1631
Striatum STR quartiles 1.4 0.2308 1.7 0.1607
HIPP quartiles 16.2 < 0.0001 3.2 0.0227
Age * STR quartiles 1.7 0.1577 1.7 0.1587

Abbreviations: HIPP = hippocampus; NACC = nucleus accumbens; CN = caudate nucleus; PUT = putamen; STR = striatum.

a

Separate effects of age, education in years, gender, ICV, CES_D score, presence of cerebral infarcts, lacune grade, WMH grade, bi-frontal distance, and presence of ApoE 4 allele are not displayed.