Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 2;36(6):909–916. doi: 10.1002/gps.5492

Table 1:

Linear mixed-effects models for the effect of PPT score on cognitive scores

Independent
variable type
Outcome
variable
B-coefficient 95% CI
(low)
95% CI
(high)
Adjusted p
Baseline PPT score SDMT 0.21 0.03 0.38 0.139
Phonemic fluency 0.19 −0.01 0.39 0.326
Delayed recognition 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.322
Delayed recall −0.03 −0.09 0.03 0.640
New dot 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.345
Digit-span 0.03 −0.02 0.08 0.634
Odd-man-out −0.01 −0.06 0.04 0.696
PPT score (time-varying) SDMT 0.39 0.25 0.53 < 0.001
Phonemic fluency 0.14 −0.05 0.33 0.548
Delayed recognition 0.00 −0.02 0.01 1.000
Delayed recall 0.01 −0.04 0.07 1.000
New dot 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.354
Digit-span 0.00 −0.05 0.05 1.000
Odd-man-out 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.390

Two linear-mixed effects models were constructed for each cognitive test (dependent variable). For models measuring the effect of baseline PPT (score at enrollment) on cognitive test score over time, baseline values were also used for all other adjusting covariables. For the non-baseline models, the values at each follow-up assessment were used for all covariables. Baseline cognitive test score was used to adjust all models. B-coefficients (unstandardized coefficients) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) correspond to the relationship between bimanual PPT score (independent variable) and the indicated neuropsychological test. P-values for baseline and longitudinal models were separately adjusted using the Holm method, using the number of tests (7) as the number of multiple comparisons. Covariables adjusted for in all models include sex, education (years), age, disease duration, UPDRS III subsections (rigidity, postural tremor, postural instability, hand movements), and Hoehn & Yahr stage.