Table 3.

Summary of the Results of this Study

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Glia-centered analyses	Estimate (SD)	p value	Estimate (SD)	p value	Estimate (SD)	p value
Dense-core plaque size vs. GFAP-positive astrocytes close	0.8721 (0.6152)	p = 0.1564	0.8723 (0.6237)	p = 0.1620	0.6382 (0.6690)	p = 0.3402
Dense-core plaque size vs. Iba1-positive microglia close	1.8182 (0.6030)	p = 0.0026	1.8581 (0.6166)	p = 0.0026	1.7207 (0.6745)	p = 0.0108

Plaque-centered analyses	Estimate (SD)	p value	Estimate (SD)	p value	Estimate (SD)	p value
Dense-core plaque size vs. GFAP-positive astrocytes close	0.1642 (0.1313)	p = 0.2111	0.1637 (0.1314)	p = 0.2128	0.0482 (0.1405)	p = 0.7316
Dense-core plaque size vs. Iba1-positive microglia close	0.6946 (0.1018)	p < 0.0001	0.6950 (0.1019)	p < 0.0001	0.6432 (0.1050)	p < 0.0001
Dense-core plaque size vs. CD68-positive microglia close	0.7484 (0.0904)	p < 0.0001	0.7485 (0.0905)	p < 0.0001	0.7038 (0.0942)	p < 0.0001

Model 1 indicates the results of the bivariate regression analyses depicted in the first column. Model 2 is similar to Model 1 but controlling for the presence of at least one APOEε4 allele (i.e. APOEε4 carriers vs. non-carriers). Model 3 is similar to Model 1 but controlling for the number of APOEε4 alleles (i.e. none vs. 1 vs. 2 alleles). Values represent the estimates (SD) of the slopes and the p values of the corresponding regression models.

GFAP, glial fibrillary acidic protein; Iba1, ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule 1.