Table 2.

Mindfulness by Patient Characteristics, CDR and GDS Stage, and Dementia Etiology

	Age					Sex
	<60 y	60–69 y	70–79 y	80 + y	p	Male	Female	p
AMPS	41.3 (8.5)	38.2 (12.3)	38.6 (11.9)	36.4 (12.1)	0.303	36.8 (11.9)	39.3 (11.8)	0.081
	Race/Ethnicity				Socioeconomic Class
	White	Black	Hispanic	p	Upper	Middle	Lower	p
AMPS	38.1 (12.0)	44.3 (9.5)	33.1 (9.6)	0.116a	38.4 (12.2)	38.9 (12.1)	37.6 (11.7)	0.875
	Education				Verbal IQ
	<12 y	13–16 y	>16 y	p	<100	100–120	>120	p
AMPS	36.6 (11.6)	37.5 (12.6)	39.5 (10.9)	0.271	35.9 (14.8)	39.9 (9.2)	44.0 (9.0)	0.092
	Fried Frailty Scores				APOE ε4 Status
	No Frailty	Pre-Frailty	Frailty	p	Non-carrier	Carrier	p
AMPS	44.1 (10.3)	39.0 (11.2)	34.6 (12.0)	<0.001b	38.6 (12.0)	40.0 (11.8)	0.465
	Staging – Clinical Dementia Rating
	CDR 0	CDR 0.5	CDR 1	CDR 2	CDR 3	p
AMPS	45.1 (10.8)	38.9 (10.9)	33.5 (11.9)	34.2 (11.5)	35.8 (13.5)	<0.001c
	Staging – Global Deterioration Scale
	GDS 1	GDS 2	GDS 3	GDS 4	GDS 5	GDS 6	p
AMPS	47.4 (8.6)	41.8 (12.3)	39.3 (10.9)	35.7 (11.5)	34.7 (12.3)	34.2 (12.1)	<0.001d
	Consensus Diagnosis
	Control	MCI	AD	DLB	VCID	FTD	p
AMPS	44.8 (10.7)	39.4 (10.9)	37.2 (12.4)	34.1 (10.8)	28.2 (11.8)	36.1 (13.2)	<0.001e

Mean (SD).

^aResults should be interpreted with caution as the number of African Americans and Hispanics is low.

^bFrailty stages are different from each other.

^cCDR 0 different from other CDR stages, CDR 0.5 different from other CDR stages, CDR 1-3 not different from each other.

^dGDS 1 different from other GDS stages, other stages not different from each other.

^eControls different from AD, DLB and VCID, MCI different from DLB and VCID, FTD not different from other Dx. AMPS, Applied Mindfulness Process Scale; GDS, Global Deterioration Scale; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; DLB, dementia with Lewy bodies; VCID, vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia; FTD, frontotemporal degeneration.