Awareness of cognitive decline trajectories in asymptomatic individuals at risk for AD

Table 2 Comparison between class 2 (reference) and both classes 1 and 3

	Class 1 (“heightened ACD”, n = 58) vs class 2 (reference, n = 235)		Class 3 (“low ACD”, n = 13) vs class 2 (reference, n = 235)
	OR ± se	p value	OR ± se	p value
Intercept	0.03 ± 0.12	0.3566	1867.11 ± 14,807.31	0.3422
Age at baseline	1.02 ± 0.04	0.6175	0.87 ± 0.08	0.1325
Gender [female]	1.47 ± 0.46	0.2123	4.66 ± 3.32	0.0307*
Education [high^§]	1.73 ± 0.53	0.0783	0.28 ± 0.30	0.2389
Amyloid load [¹⁸F-AV-45 SUVr]	0.99 ± 0.85	0.9950	57.18 ± 69.93	0.0009*
Amyloid status [Aβ- subjects]	0.84 ± 0.30	0.6262	3.70 ± 2.31	0.0357*
Brain metabolism [¹⁸F-FDG SUV]	1.03 ± 0.62	0.9560	0.18 ± 0.26	0.2289

Class 2, with stable evolution and matching subject’s and informant’s ratings of decline, was the reference class. For categorical variables, category in brackets was the reference
¹⁸F-AV-45 SUVr florbetapir standardized uptake value ratio (index of amyloid deposition). Effect adjusted for age, gender, education, and FDG load
¹⁸F-FDG SUV fluorodeoxyglucose standardized uptake value (metabolic index)
^§Equal to or higher than high-school diploma (≥ 12 years)
OR odd ratio, se standard errors
* Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)

ISSN: 1758-9193