Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Psychiatry. Dec 19, 2023; 13(12): 985-994
Published online Dec 19, 2023. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v13.i12.985
Table 1 Observed differences in basic data
Group
The number of cases
Male/female
Age (yr)
The control group5024/2663.11 ± 6.45
Cognitively normal group4525/1564.87 ± 6.69
Cognitive impairment group3527/1364.76 ± 6.45
χ2/F/P value-3.657/0.0731.482/0.187
Table 2 Differences in non-HDL-C and Hcy levels in each group (X ± S)
Group
The number of cases
Non-HDL-C (tendency/L)
Hcy (mol/L)
The control group503.11 ± 0.5211.66 ± 0.71
Cognitively normal group453.24 ± 0.5423.22 ± 3.68
Cognitive impairment group353.98 ± 0.871,230.34 ± 4.721,2
F/P value-6.393/0.00025.417/0.000
Table 3 Differences in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (X ± S)
GroupThe number of casesVisuospatial executive abilityNamedAttentionLanguage abilityAbstractDelayed recallDirectionalTotal score
The control group503.12 ± 1.042.80± 0.455.84 ± 0.372.88 ± 0.331.78 ± 0.513.10 ± 1.235.86 ± 0.3525.46 ± 2.41
Cognitively normal group454.39 ± 0.722.79 ± 0.395.69 ± 0.4122.98 ± 0.091.87 ± 0.153.62 ± 0.915.63 ± 0.3626.98 ± 1.20
Cognitive impairment group351.73 ± 1.251.62 ± 0.9812.31 ± 1.092.61 ± 0.501.43 ± 0.892.16 ± 1.014.69 ± 1.6617.13 ± 4.531,2
F/P value-11.962/0.0007.309/0.00028.304/0.000329.283/0.0003.263/0.0026.784/0.000341.597/0.00013.992/0.000
Table 4 Correlation analysis of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and Homocysteine levels and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score
ProjectHcy
non-HDL-C
r value
P value
r value
P value
Viewspace/execution0.2920.0030.2330.000
Named0.4780.0000.4870.004
Attention0.6580.0020.6220.000
Language ability0.4510.0000.4220.002
Abstract0.3020.0010.3680.000
Delay memories0.3670.0000.3080.002
Directional0.6850.0030.6760.001
MoCA scores0.7030.0000.7050.000
Table 5 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of serum non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and Homocysteine levels for the diagnosis of cognitive impairment in patients with thalamic infarction
Variable
The critical value
AUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
95%CI
About an index
Hcy (μmol/L)22.5400.7090.7240.6300.599-0.8160.354
Non-HDL-C (tendency/L)1.3510.7380.7010.8700.618-0.8590.571
Hcy in combination with non-HDL-C-0.7690.7580.8890.721-0.8950.647
Table 6 Differences in clinical characteristics between patients with thalamic infarction in the good and poor prognosis groups
ProjectGood prognosis group (n = 50)Poor prognosis group (n = 30)χ2/tP value
Age (yr)65.12 ± 6.7464.13 ± 10.070.5270.600
Men32 (64.00)20 (66.67)0.0590.809
Time of onset (h)20.39 ± 3.2120.42 ± 3.190.0410.968
Smoking history26 (52.00)16 (53.33)0.0130.908
The history of drinking24 (48.00)13 (43.33)0.1640.685
Hypertension24 (48.00)18 (60.00)1.0830.298
Diabetes14 (28.00)9 (30.00)0.0370.848
CHD8 (16.00)4 (13.33)0.1050.746
NIHSS score14.52 ± 5.4317.91 ± 5.782.6390.010
Non-HDL-C (tendency/L)3.08 ± 0.463.79 ± 0.576.1030.000
Hcy (μmol/L)14.54 ± 0.7827.51 ± 4.0821.9090.000
Massive cerebral infarction13 (26.00)15 (50.00)4.7470.029
Atrial fibrillation6 (12.00)9 (30.00)3.9880.046
APTT (1 S)31.55 ± 3.4533.43 ± 4.322.1440.035
Table 7 Multivariate logistic regression analysis of influencing factors of a poor prognosis in patients with thalamic infarction
Variable
OR
95%CI
Wald
P value
Atrial fibrillation0.2320.068-0.7685.7010.016
Non-HDL-C1.7531.243-2.47710.1870.001
Hcy1.0511.006-1.0965.3230.020
APTT1.1271.003-1.1864.1160.077
NIHSS score1.0911.004-1.2684.1340.012