86 Chapter 4 medial temporal BPND associated with worse memory performance, and higher (orbito-)frontoparietal BPND with worse scores on executive functioning (Figure 2). Higher inferior temporal BPND associated with worse language performance and higher (middle-)frontoparietal and occipital BPND with worse attention scores (Figure 2). After FWE correction, sparse associations with higher BPND in the medial temporal regions and worse memory performance remained, as well as higher BPND in the temporal (fusiform cortex) regions and worse language scores (data not shown). Associations between higher BPND in the parietal and frontal regions and worse attention also survived FWE correction (data not shown). Overall, lower R1 associated with worse cognition (Figure 2). In more detail, lower fronto-temporoparietal R1 associated with worse scores on executive functioning and to a sparser extent with worse language performance (Figure 2). Lower temporoparietal R1 associated with worse attention scores (Figure 2). None of the associations survived FWE correction (data not shown). Regional associations with cognition Regional linear regression analyses (model 1) revealed that higher medial temporal BPND was associated with worse memory performance (− 0.43 [− 0.66 to − 0.20]), higher lateral temporal BPND with worse scores on executive functioning (− 0.26 [− 0.52 to − 0.02]) and language (− 0.37 [− 0.66 to −0.11]), and higher parietal BPND with worse executive functioning (− 0.46 [− 0.81 to − 0.23]), language (− 0.34 [− 0.76 to − 0.03]) and attention (− 0.50 [− 0.89 to − 0.25]) (Table 4; Figure 3). Higher BPND in the occipital ROI was associated with worse memory (− 0.27 [− 0.54 to − 0.00]), executive functioning (− 0.26 [− 0.53 to − 0.01]), language (− 0.40 [− 0.73 to − 0.14]) and attention (− 0.37 [− 0.67 to − 0.10]) performance, and higher BPND in the frontal ROI with worse executive functioning (− 0.34 [− 0.65 to − 0.13]) and attention (− 0.33 [− 0.67 to − 0.08]). After FDR correction, the majority of significant associations remained (Table 4; Figure 3). Lower lateral temporal and parietal R1 was associated with lower scores on executive functioning (0.27 [0.04 to 0.50]; 0.36 [0.15 to 0.60]), language (0.30 [0.04 to 0.57]; 0.28 [0.02 to 0.57]) and attention (0.33 [0.08 to 0.57]; 0.48 [0.26 to 0.71]) (Table 4; Figure 3). Lower R1 in the occipital ROI was associated with worse language (0.28 [0.03 to 0.57]) and attention (0.31 [0.07 to 0.59]) performance. By applying the FDR correction, the significant associations between lower R1 in the parietal ROI and worse executive functioning remained, as well as the significant associations between lower R1 in the lateral temporal, parietal and occipital ROI and worse attention scores (Table 4; Figure 3). Scatterplots for a selection of these associations are presented in Figure 1. Finally, to examine the independent effects of tau pathology and rCBF on cognitive functioning, linear regression analyses including both [18F]flortaucipir BP ND and R1 were performed (model 2) (Table 4).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw