Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 11.
Published in final edited form as: Mech Ageing Dev. 2020 Oct 19;192:111386. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111386

Table 3.

Individual study’s analytic specifications and effect sizes with standard error.

Author Total N AB− n AB + n Amyloid scale Amyloid method SCD only Covariate-controlled Picture naming Semantic fluency Vocabulary WAIS Information Word-picture matching
Aizenstein et al. (2008) 38 29 9 categorical PET no no −0.51 (0.39) −0.02 (0.38)
Amariglio et al. (2012) 131 97 34 categorical PET no no 0.26 (0.2)
Bennett et al. (2006) 134 84 50 categorical histology no no 0.44 (0.18) 0.39 (0.18) 0.05 (0.18)
Bos et al. (2018) 907 526 190 categorical CSF or PET no no 0.12 (0.08)
Clark et al. (2018) 314 240 104 categorical CSF no no 0.94 (0.14)
Doraiswamy et al. (2014) 67 57 10 categorical PET no no 0.4 (0.34)
Dubois et al. (2018) 318 230 88 categorical PET yes no −0.02 (0.13) 0.14 (0.13)
Edelman et al. (2017) 44 23 21 categorical PET no no 0.34 (0.3) 0.17 (0.3)
Edmonds et al. (2015) 570 142 428 categorical CSF no no 0.2 (0.09) 0.22 (0.09)
Funaki et al. (2019) 42 32 10 categorical PET no no −0.07 (0.36)
Harrington et al. (2017) 335 277 58 categorical PET no yes 0.25 (0.14)
Hassenstab et al. (2016) 264 177 87 categorical CSF no no 0.14 (0.13) 0.09 (0.13) 0.13 (0.13)
Hilal et al. (2017) 1201 continuous plasma no yes 0.28 (0.33)
Hulette et al. (1998) 11 7 4 categorical histology no no 0.68 (0.64)
Jicha et al. (2012) 126 71 54 categorical histology no no 0.18 (0.18)
Kawas et al. (2013) 13 9 4 Categorical PET no no 0.56 (0.61) 0.66 (0.61)
Kim et al. (2016) 13 10 3 continuous PET yes1 no 0.92 (0.68) 0.51 (0.67)
Lee et al. (2020) 97 continuous plasma no yes 0.05 (0.21)
Li et al. (2007) 72 51 21 categorical CSF no no 0.52 (0.26)
Li et al. (2014) 315 continuous CSF no yes 0.1 (0.05)
Lim et al. (2013) 178 123 55 categorical PET yes no −0.1 (0.16)
Loewenstein et al. (2016) 23 continuous PET no no 0.93 (0.44)
Mathis et al. (2013) 152 74 78 categorical PET no no 0.14 (0.16)
Mielke et al. (2016) 464 383 81 categorical PET no yes −0.16 (0.24) 0.05 (0.22)
Morris et al. (1996) 21 12 9 categorical histology no no 0.97 (0.47) −0.18 (0.44)
Oh et al. (2011) 52 33 19 categorical PET no no 0.51 (0.29) 0.41 (0.29)
Oh et al. (2012) 189 34 18 categorical PET no no −0.39 (0.29)
Papp et al. (2017) 279 209 70 categorical PET no no −0.09 (0.14)
Payoux et al. (2015) 235 158 77 categorical PET no no 0.24 (0.14)
Perrotin et al. (2012) 48 27 11 categorical PET no no 0.43 (0.36)
Price et al. (2009) 97 59 38 categorical histology no no −0.01 (0.21) 0.17 (0.21)
Rami et al. (2011) 17 11 6 categorical CSF yes no 0.32 (0.51) 0.86 (0.53)
Rosenberg et al. (2013) 15 continuous PET no no 0.37 (0.52)
Sala-Llonch et al. (2017) 89 62 27 categorical CSF no no 0.01 (0.23)
Snitz et al. (2020) 118 continuous PET no yes 0.07 (0.18) −0.12 (.07)
Soldan et al. (2016) 222 148 74 categorical CSF no no 0 (0.14)
Sperling et al. (2013) 78 60 18 categorical PET no no 0.25 (0.27)
Um et al. (2017) 50 34 16 categorical PET no no −0.35 (0.31) 0.21 (0.3)
Vannini et al. (2013) 41 22 19 categorical PET no no 0.96 (0.33)
Verberk et al. (2020) 241 continuous CSF yes yes −0.15 (0.08) 0.03 (0.06)
Verfaillie et al. (2019) 63 44 19 categorical PET or CSF yes no −0.33 (0.28) 0.11 (0.27)

Note. SCD = subjective cognitive decline; PET = positron emission tomography, CSF = cerebrospinal fluid;

1

All subjects had a history of major depressive disorder in addition to SCD.