Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurobiol Aging. 2013 Apr 16;34(9):2208–2216. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.010

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Sample by IDE genotype and Longitudinal Wave

IDE genotype

G+ (G/G & G/A) G− (A/A)

W1 W2 W1 W2

na 495 (122 & 373) 410 (104 & 306) 79 64
Age M(SD) 69.8 (8.48) 73.9 (8.36) 72.3 (8.65) 76.9 (8.75)
 Range 53.2 – 95.2 57.3 – 94.1 54.6 – 89.3 58.9 – 94.5
Gender (% women) 67.7 67.8 62.0 59.4
T2D (% with T2D) 7.9 7.8 8.9 7.8
Hayling M(SD) 5.62 (1.42) 5.49 (1.49) 5.47 (1.42) 5.23 (1.40)
Stroopb M(SD) 1.25 (.706) 1.31 (.910) 1.41 (.828) 1.44 (.892)
Brixton M(SD) 4.96 (2.13) 5.42 (2.00) 4.56 (2.17) 4.98 (2.12)
Color Trailsb M(SD) 91.9 (28.9) 99.1 (38.6) 99.3 (35.0) 107.1 (41.7)
EF factor scores M(SD) .008 (.805) .051 (1.20) −.244 (.873) −.331 (1.38)

Note. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium χ2 = 54.09 at W1, therefore the genotypic distribution for IDE is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. W1 = Wave 1. W2 = Wave 2.

a

For G+ n is for total G (G/G & G/A).

b

Lower scores indicate better performance.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure