Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 3 Basal forebrain subfield volumes (mm3)

From: Spatial navigation is associated with subcortical alterations and progression risk in subjective cognitive decline

 

NC (n = 77)

G-SCD (n = 40)

B-SCD (n = 40)

MCI (n = 23)

F

P

Ch4p

85.80 ± 8.03

86.40 ± 9.27

81.96 ± 6.34bd

79.78 ± 5.74ce

4.994

0.002*

Ch4a-i

142.37 ± 10.17

144.01 ± 13.01

137.13 ± 11.32bd

134.19 ± 10.03ce

4.757

0.003*

Ch3

135.73 ± 10.25

136.77 ± 13.27

130.98 ± 11.29

126.73 ± 9.47ce

4.843

0.003*

NSP

104.60 ± 8.16

104.93 ± 10.01

101.44 ± 9.79

98.22 ± 7.23ce

3.187

0.025*

Ch1/2

66.74 ± 6.73

67.36 ± 8.00

63.56 ± 6.17

61.03 ± 6.91ce

4.885

0.003*

  1. Data were presented as means ± standard deviation
  2. *p < 0.05, FDR corrected, controlling for sex, age, years of education, and total intracranial volume
  3. a~fPost hoc analyses showed a significant difference between groups. aNC vs G-SCD; bNC vs B-SCD; cNC vs MCI; dG-SCD vs B-SCD; eG-SCD vs MCI; fB-SCD vs MCI
Back to article page

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1758-9193