Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant characteristics at baseline

From: Portals to frailty? Data-driven analyses detect early frailty profiles

Characteristic

Total sample

Not-clinically-frail

Mobility-type

Respiratory-type

Sig.

Class prevalence n (%)

–

542 (84%)

59 (9%)

48 (7%)

 

n (%) female

431 (66%)

351 (65%)

44 (75%)

36 (75%)

ns

Age (in years)

70.61 (8.64)

69.78 (8.39)e

78.21 (7.53)f

70.60 (8.27)e

***

Education (in years)

15.27 (2.97)

15.39 (2.94)

14.67 (2.83)

14.54 (3.34)

ns

APOE ɛ4+

150

132 (24%)

6 (11%)

12 (25%)

ns

Frailty indexa

0.13 (0.07)

0.11 (0.06)e

0.22 (0.07)f

0.20 (0.07)f

***

MMSE

28.67 (1.25)

28.70 (1.24)

28.29 (1.39)

28.78 (1.11)

ns

Timed walkb,c

6.42 (1.65)

6.12 (1.13)e

9.28 (2.80)f

6.51 (1.65)e

***

Peak flow (L/min)b,d

421.98 (117.77)

435.40 (114.01)e

360.17 (100.86)f

329.10 (123.31)g

***

  1. Results presented as mean (standard deviation). p values are based on one-way ANOVA or chi-square tests, as appropriate. We adjusted for multiple comparisons using post-hoc Tukey tests
  2. aWe calculated the proportion of deficits for each person on the 50 item frailty index as reported in Thibeau et al. [4]
  3. bWe tested whether mobility- and respiratory-type differed from one another and the not-clinically-frail profile using planned comparisons
  4. cThe number of seconds taken to walk 20 ft
  5. dThe largest volume of air expired over three attempts
  6. e, f, gValues with different superscripts differ from one another
  7. ***p < .001
Back to article page

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1758-9193