Cognitive status in the total sample and among age ranges

SUPPLEMENT

This section includes two tables reporting, in detail, the performance at the cognitive assessment of the whole sample and of each age group, and the comparisons between our two convenience and volunteer samples by age range. The aim is to demonstrate the cognitive integrity and the goodness of our cohort in order to obtain normative values that are representative of the general healthy population and easy to use in the current dementia workup.

1

Table S1. Cognitive status in the total sample and among age ranges.

Values denote mean ± SD; we report the cutoffs denoting abnormal performance. ¹Carlesimo, G. A., Buccione, I., Fadda, L., Graceffa, A., Mauri, M., Lorusso, S., Bevilacqua, G., Caltagirone, C., 2002. Normative data of two memory tasks: Short-Story recall and Rey's Figure. Nuova Rivista di

Neurologia, 12, 1-13. ²Carlesimo, G.A., Caltagirone, C., Gainotti, G., 1996. The Mental Deterioration Battery: Normative Data, Diagnostic Reliability and Qualitative Analyses of Cognitive Impairment. European Neurology 36, 378–384. ³Caffarra, P., Vezzadini, G., Dieci, F., Zonato, F., Venneri, A., 2002.Rey-Osterrieth complex figure: normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci. 22, 443-447. ⁴Giovagnoli, A.R., Del Pesce, M., Mascheroni, S., Simoncelli, M., Laiacona, M., Capitani, E., 1996. Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci.

17, 305-309.

2 Cutoff Total

Sample (N=936)

20-29

(N=84) 30-39

(N=161) 40-49

(N=209) 50-59

(N=202) 60-69

(N=189) 70-79

(N=77) ≥80 (N=14) Cognition

Babcock test <7.5¹ 13.0 ± 3.0 14.6 ± 1.6 14.3 ± 2.0 13.7 ± 3.3 12.9 ± 2.9 12.1 ± 2.9 11.7 ± 3.2 11.3 ± 3.9 Rey’s words list

immediate recall <28.52² 49.8 ± 10.9 60.3 ± 7.7 55.0 ± 12.1 55.7 ± 7.8 48.6 ± 9.7 44.8 ± 8.6 38.0 ± 8.6 35.0 ± 6.0 Rey’s words list

delayed recall <4.68² 11.6 ± 3.0 13.9 ± 1.5 13.5 ± 1.7 13.3 ± 1.6 11.7 ± 2.7 10.0 ± 2.8 8.1 ± 3.0 6.4 ± 2.0 Rey’s figure recall <9.96³ 17.4 ± 7.1 23.5 ± 5.1 19.7 ± 6.9 18.6 ± 6.4 16.6 ± 6.8 14.6 ± 6.6 14.5 ± 7.3 10.9 ± 4.5 Trail Making test A >93⁴ 42.2 ± 22.8 26.7 ± 7.9 27.9 ± 7.6 31.5 ± 11.1 41.1 ± 18.4 47.7 ± 27.3 54.1 ±26.3 57.6 ± 25.0 Trail Making test B >282⁴ 103.9 ± 78.1 60.8 ± 30.0 57.6 ± 23.9 70.4 ± 38.0 99.6 ± 115.4 123.7 ± 70.6 139.0 ± 66.8 160.6 ± 90.6 Letter fluency <16² 35.9 ± 10.7 39.2 ± 9.8 37.6 ± 10.2 38.4 ± 9.3 35.8 ± 11.8 33.0 ± 10.2 32.3 ± 10.4 29.2 ± 14.8 Category fluency <24² 42.9 ± 9.7 47.6 ± 7.6 46.6 ± 8.6 45.5 ± 9.2 42.8 ± 9.1 39.6 ± 9.4 36.3 ± 9.5 32.4 ± 10.7 Raven matrices <17.5² 29.7 ± 5.8 33.6 ± 3.3 33.2 ± 3.0 32.5 ± 4.5 29.3 ± 7.5 28.6 ± 5.4 27.3 ± 4.9 26.1 ± 6.5 Rey figure copy <28.87³ 33.3 ± 4.2 35.5 ± 0.9 34.7 ± 2.6 34.3 ± 3.4 32.9 ± 4.6 31.9 ± 5.0 31.6 ± 5.0 31.9 ± 4.0

Table S2: MTA and PA ranges by age decades in the convenience sample and in healthy volunteers.

MTA PA

Decade

Convenience sample

N

Healthy volunteers

N

Convenience sample (N=802)

Healthy volunteers

(N=134)

P value

Convenience sample (N=802)

Healthy volunteers

(N=134)

20-29 62 22 0-2 0-2 0.993 0-1 0-1

30-39 144 17 0-2 0-2 1.000 0-2 0-1

40-49 193 16 0-2 0-2 0.999 0-2 0-1

50-59 180 22 0-2 0-2 0.755 0-2 0-1

60-69 148 41 0-3 0-2 0.870 0-3 0-2

70-79 65 12 0-3 0-2 0.814 0-3 0-2

≥80 10 4 0-4 3-4 0.290 1-2 1-2

Sample size by age decade is the same for both MTA and PA. Comparisons were performed with Chi square test.

3