Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 14;12:148. doi: 10.1186/s13195-020-00717-z

Table 1.

Participant characteristics

bvAD tAD bvFTD CN1 p value
n 29 28 28 34
Age, years 64.4 (9.4) 63.0 (9.3) 64.6 (4.4) 64.9 (9.9) 0.84
Sex, no. male (%) 17 (59) 16 (55) 21 (70) 22 (65) 0.82
Educationa, years mean (SD) 15.7 (2.6) 15.8 (2.8) 15.1 (3.4) 17.9 (2.0) 0.001
MMSEb †, mean (SD) 22.0 (5.9) 22.1 (5.7) 21.3 (6.7) 29.5 (0.7) 0.001
APOEε4 positivityc, no. of patients (%) 11/18 (61) 10/14 (67) 3/27 (11) 6/34 (18) < 0.001
MRI scanner field strength 0.16
 1.5 T 17 (59) 22 (79) 14 (50) 22 (65)
 3 T 12 (41) 6 (21) 14 (50) 12 (35)
Memory domain z-scored °, mean (SD) − 3.5 (1.5) − 3.9 (1.3) − 2.8 (1.7) 0.3 (0.9) < 0.001
Executive domain z-scoree °, mean (SD) − 1.9 (1.0) − 1.9 (1.0) − 2.1 (1.0) 0.0 (0.6) < 0.001
NPI scoref ◊, mean (SD) 30.2 (20.6) 12.8 (15.4) 34.7 (17.2) 0.001

Differences between groups were assessed using (M)ANOVA tests, chi-square tests, and Kruskall-Wallis tests with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests, where appropriate. All p values were corrected for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction. Data presented above are based on the groups for whom T1 MRI scans were available. See Supplement 2 for equivalent information in groups for which FDG and FLAIR-MRI scans were available

MMSE data was available for n = 26 for bvAD, n = 19 for tAD, n = 27 for bvFTD, and n = 34 for CN1

°Cognition data was available for n = 22 for bvAD, n = 28 for tAD, n = 24 for bvFTD, and n = 30 for CN1

NPI data was available for n = 13 for bvAD, n = 18 for tAD, n = 20 for bvFTD, and n = 0 for CN1

aControls > patients, p < 0.01

bControls > patients, p < 0.001

cbvAD and tAD > controls, p < 0.01, bvAD and tAD > bvFTD, p < 0.001

dControls > patients, p < 0.001, tAD < bvFTD, p < 0.05

eControls > patients, p < 0.001

fbvAD and bvFTD > tAD, p < 0.01