TABLE A1.
(A) Demographic characteristics of selected and entire participants in V2 and the participants in V3 and scores of the common tests in V2 and V3 (the data used for preliminary analyses [1] and [2]). (B) ROC‐AUC results under the Preliminary Analyses 1 for tests used in both V2 and V3 cohorts
| (A) | Version 2 Entire Sample (N = 11,060) Dates of Assessment: 9/9/2005 – 3/13/2015 | Version 2 (A) (N = 4320)* Used for Preliminary Analysis 1 Dates of Assessment: 9/9/2005 – 4/19/2011 | Version 2 (B) (N = 4320)* Used for Preliminary Analysis 2 Dates of Assessment: 12/20/2011 – 3/13/2015 | Version 3 (N = 4318) Dates of Assessment: 3/16/2015 – 8/8/2018 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDR = 0 N = 4960 | CDR = 0.5 N = 4684 | CDR = 1 N = 1416 | CDR = 0 N = 2274 | CDR = 0.5 N = 1724 | CDR = 1 N = 322 | CDR = 0 N = 2274 | CDR = 0.5 N = 1724 | CDR = 1 N = 322 | CDR = 0 N = 2274 | CDR = 0.5 N = 1722 | CDR = 1 N = 322 | |
| Age, y (mean, SD) | 71.8 (7.4) | 73.5 (7.6) | 75.2 (8.0) | 71.8 (7.5) | 74.1 (7.5) | 75.5 (7.7) | 71.8 (7.3) | 73.1 (7.7) | 74.1 (8.0) | 71.2 (6.5) | 72.6 (7.0) | 74.8 (7.6) |
| Education, y (mean, SD) | 15.9 (2.9) | 15.4 (3.3) | 14.8 (3.5) | 15.6 (3.1) | 14.9 (3.4) | 14.6 (3.6) | 16.2 (2.8) | 15.6 (3.2) | 15.3 (3.2) | 16.3 (2.7) | 16.0 (2.9) | 15.5 (3.1) |
| Female (%) | 65.3 | 47.7 | 47.2 | 66.1 | 48.5 | 49.1 | 64.2 | 45.9 | 43.5 | 65.3 | 50.6 | 46.3 |
| Race (%) | ||||||||||||
| Caucasian | 77.5 | 81.0 | 84.1 | 75.1 | 81.4 | 82.9 | 79.3 | 79.6 | 86.3 | 76.4 | 82.2 | 88.8 |
|
African American |
17.0 | 11.6 | 9.7 | 19.1 | 11.3 | 11.5 | 15.5 | 12.4 | 7.1 | 16.2 | 12.5 | 6.2 |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
0.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0 |
|
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander |
0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.3 |
| Asian | 1.8 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 3.4 |
| Multiracial | 3.2 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.2 |
| Cognitive Test Scores | ||||||||||||
| Common tests across two versions | ||||||||||||
| Animals | 20.1 (5.6) | 15.7 (5.5) | 11.4 (4.8) | 19.8 (5.7) | 15.3 (5.2) | 10.9 (4.3) | 20.5 (5.5) | 15.9 (5.7) | 11.9 (5.0) | 20.6 (5.6) | 16.5 (5.5) | 12.2 (5.1) |
| Vegetables | 14.6 (4.3) | 10.6 (4.2) | 7.3 (3.6) | 14.4 (4.3) | 10.6 (4.1) | 7.4 (3.4) | 14.7 (4.2) | 10.5 (4.1) | 7.5 (3.7) | 14.4 (4.1) | 10.8 (4.3) | 7.3 (3.7) |
| Trail A | 35.1 (15.8) | 45.3 (23.6) | 64.3 (35.6) | 36.8 (18.0) | 47.1 (24.8) | 65.0 (35.2) | 33.3 (13.3) | 44.4 (22.7) | 61.9 (34.6) | 33.7 (14.0) | 43.1 (22.7) | 59.7 (32.0) |
| Trail B | 95.3 (53.3) | 149.7 (83.4) | 223.8 (85.4) | 100.2 (58.1) | 155.9 (84.5) | 225.9 (83.2) | 90.9 (49.0) | 147.8 (82.7) | 213.1 (88.7) | 90.5 (48.1) | 138.2 (80.1) | 209.4 (88.8) |
| (B) ROC‐AUC comparisons between V2 cohort (A) and V3 cohort | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version 2 | Version 3 | ||||||
| Test | CDR 0 vs 0.5 | CDR 0 vs 1 | CDR 0.5 vs 1 | Test | CDR 0 vs 0.5 | CDR 0 vs 1 | CDR 0.5 vs 1 |
| ANIMALS | 0.767** | 0.923 | 0.764 | ANIMALS | 0.734 | 0.920 | 0.777 |
| Category Fluency (animals) | (0.753, 0.782) | (0.911, 0.935) | (0.742, 0.786) | Category Fluency (animals) | (0.719, 0.749) | (0.907, 0.932) | (0.755, 0.798) |
| VEG | 0.765 | 0.919 | 0.755 | VEG | 0.745 | 0.932 | 0.780 |
| Category Fluency (vegetables) | (0.75, 0.779) | (0.907, 0.932) | (0.733, 0.778) | Category Fluency (vegetables) | (0.73, 0.76) | (0.92, 0.944) | (0.759, 0.801) |
| TRAILA | 0.716** | 0.860 | 0.711 | TRAILA | 0.686 | 0.878 | 0.749 |
| Trail A Lines per second | (0.701, 0.733) | (0.84, 0.877) | (0.684, 0.735) | Trail A Lines per second | (0.667, 0.7) | (0.859, 0.892) | (0.723, 0.769) |
| TRAILB | 0.754** | 0.908 | 0.735 | TRAILB | 0.719 | 0.892 | 0.742 |
| Trail Making Test Part B | (0.739, 0.77) | (0.892, 0.925) | (0.708, 0.762) | Trail Making Test Part B | (0.703, 0.735) | (0.872, 0.912) | (0.714, 0.771) |
**The same tests used in both batteries (Category Fluency Animals, Trails A and B) showed statistically significant better performance in differentiating CDR of 0 and 0.5 when used among V2 cohort, indicating the potential difference in cognitive abilities among those with CDR of 0 and 0.5 between the two cohorts.