66 Chapter 3 (Λ = 0.03, χ2(18) = 196.75, p < .001). This indicates that each cluster showed distinct intra-individual profiles regarding the cognitive impairment across domains. Subsequently, all clusters were compared regarding the proportion of patients with cognitive impairments (Figure 3). Attention impairments did not differ between any of the clusters. Cluster IV had significantly more patients with an executive function impairment (55%) compared to both cluster I (14%) and cluster II (0%), but did not differ from cluster III (22%, p=.032, φ=.397). When considering memory impairment, cluster III and IV both had more patients with an impairment (100% and 91%, respectively), than clusters I and II (0% and 17%, respectively, p<.001, φ=.936). Cluster IV had most patients with impairments in processing speed (100%) compared to all other clusters. Additionally, Cluster I had more patients with processing speed impairments (33%) than Cluster III (0%, p<.001, φ=.786). Psychomotor impairments were more frequent among cluster II (100%) than cluster I (0%) and cluster III (33%). Cluster IV also had more patients with psychomotor impairment (73%) than cluster I (p<.001, φ=.634). Lastly, cluster II had significantly more patients with a visuospatial functioning impairment (33%) than cluster I (0.0%; p=.049, φ=.375). There were significant differences between clusters regarding the number of impaired cognitive domains (p<.001). Post-hoc tests indicated cluster IV had significantly more impaired cognitive domains compared to all clusters (all p≤.001), and cluster III had more cognitive impairments than cluster I (p=.008). Thus, cluster I and II represent the patients with the least number of cognitive impairments. Based on the different neurocognitive profiles, the clusters were identified as ‘no or limited cognitive deficits restricted to processing speed or executive function’ (cluster I), ‘psychomotor speed impairment’ (cluster II) and two clusters with memory impairments (cluster III and IV). Cluster IV exhibited multiple additional cognitive impairments and was therefore named ‘Memory + multiple impairments‘ (Figure 3). None of the clusters differed regarding any of the patient or clinical characteristics listed in Supplementary Table 2.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw