2.4 Statistical analyses
Initially, an ANOVA and chi-square analysis were done to compare
demographic data. Then, MANCOVA was used to compare the NSS and
neurocognitive performance with age as a covariable. The Fisher’s least
significant difference (LSD) method was used to conduct post hoc
comparisons between EBP and HC, EBP and FDR, and FDR and HC. Each test
was subjected to Bonferroni corrections to account for multiple testing.
In addition, Using NSS and neurocognitive performance as predictor
variables, a step-by-step linear discriminant functional analysis was
performed to predict group membership (EBP, FDR, and HC) (EBP and HC)
(FDR and HC) (EBP and FDR). A two-tailed p value of less than 0.05 was
considered statistically significant. All the statistical analyses were
carried out with SPSS22.
3
results
There were no significant differences between the three groups in terms
of gender, handiness, or education level. In RP, the median number of
episodes was 3.09±0.845, the median HAMD score was 3.58±1.439, and the
median YMRS score was 2.89±1.107. There were significant differences in
age across the three groups (Table 1).
3.2 Neurological soft signsThe results revealed that the EBP had significantly more anomalies in
the motor coordination subitem and total NSS score than the FDR
(p<0.001; Bonferroni-corrected p<0.01). These subitems were also
significantly higher in the EBP compared to the healthy controls, with
Bonferroni correction accounting for all significant differences. The
FDR scored significantly higher on motor coordination
subitems (p<0.001;
Bonferroni-corrected p<0.01) and total NSS (p=0.001;
Bonferroni-corrected p<0.05) than HC. Furthermore, EBP (p<0.001;
Bonferroni-corrected p<0.01) showed larger sensory integration
abnormalities than FDR and healthy controls, however, no significant
differences were found between FDR and HC. Finally, there were no
significant differences between the three groups on the disinhibition
items (Table 2).3.3 Neurocognitive performanceExcept for RS, there were significant differences in the six MCCB
subscales across the three groups(p<0.001).RP and FDR performed
significantly worse than healthy controls in all cognitive areas except
RS. EBP fared much worse on IPS, VL, and WM than FDR. Furthermore, all
significant differences were subjected to the Bonferroni correction
(Table 3).3.4 Discriminant functional analysisThe Wilks method’s F values, which serve as the standards for
determining the inclusion and exclusion of predictive factors, are 3.84
and 2.71, respectively. Only 65.4% of the original 243 samples were
properly classified by stepwise linear discriminant function analysis
when the three groups were mixed when NSS (motor coordination) and
neurocognitive performance (IPS, VL, WM) were employed as predictors
(EBP 64.2%, FDR 81.5%, HC 50.6 %). The discriminant function properly
identified 88.3%of the original sample when EBP and HC were merged
((EBP 87.7 % and HC 88.9 %). When FDR and HC were intermingled, the
discriminant function accurately identified 81.5% of the original
sample (EBP 84% and HC 68%). When EBP and FDR were mixed, the
discriminant function accurately classified 62.3%of the original sample
(EBP 58% and 66.7%HC). When the NSS or neurocognitive performance were
entered separately into the discriminant function analysis, the accuracy
of categorizing each group was lower than when both were integrated as
predictor factors. (Table 4).