Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020 Mar 1;83(3):251–259. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002252

Figure 2. CEF average T-score and DDS distribution, and comparisons with Frascati and GDS.

Figure 2.

(A) Frequency distributions of CEF average T-scores in both NNTC and CHARTER reveal a good fit to a Gaussian distribution. (B) Frequency distributions of CEF DDS, with the majority for both NNTC and CHARTER having values between 0.0 and 0.2. (C) CEF average T-scores compared to Frascati diagnosis for NNTC and CHARTER. Red lines indicate median and interquartile range. One-way ANOVA for both revealed significance (p<0.001). Tukey’s multiple comparison tests were p<0.0001 between all conditions except ANI vs. MND, which for NNTC p=0.0001, and CHARTER p=0.0005. (D) CEF DDS compared to Frascati diagnosis for NNTC and CHARTER. Red lines indicate median and interquartile range. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used given the distribution of the data, and revealed significance (p<0.0001) for both. Dunn’s multiple comparison tests were p<0.0001 between all conditions except ANI vs. MND, which for NNTC p=0.0002, and CHARTER p=0.0147, and for CHARTER only ANI vs HAD p=0.0001, and MND vs HAD p=0.0361. (E) ROC curves for NNTC and CHARTER, comparing GDS with the CEF average T-scores and DDS to diagnose impairment (using the Frascati criteria) for NNTC, CHARTER, and the combined cohorts. The area under the curve (auc) is indicated. (F). Frequency distribution of CEF average T-scores and DDS in unimpaired subjects from the combined NNTC and CHARTER cohorts. For the average T-scores (left) the cut-off at 1.5 SD below the mean is indicated, and for DDS (right) the cut-off at 0.5 is indicated.