Compensate for interindividual differences in total brain volumes, we SR-3029 web I-BRD9 web calculated the ratios of volumes of WMH to total brain volumes, using these in the statistical analyses. In the present study, we used only the ratios of total WMH volumes, which have been shown to be highly correlated with regional WMH volumes [37]. Visual assessment of WMH. MRI’s were also rated visually, using the Scheltens scale [38], by an experienced rater (OJG), blind to clinical data. According to the Scheltens scale, white matter changes (WMC) are subdivided into periventricular WMC and deep WMC, and deep WMC are further subdivided into deep WMH (DWMH), basal ganglia WMH (BGH) and infratentorial hyperintensities (IT) [39]. In the statistical analyses, we used only the DWMH scores, because these have been associated with (orthostatic) BP drop in previous studies [15,17]. Inter-rater reliability with another experienced rater (MKB) was evaluated, based on 12 scans, finding an ICC of 0.923.no significant differences between those belonging to the highest and lowest DWMH score quartiles. We did not find any significant association between a history of hypertension and having OH at baseline (Pearson Chi Square 0.224, df 1, p = 0.636).Associations between WMH and OHThere was no significant correlation between WMH volume ratios and the systolic orthostatic BP drops (Spearman’s rho 0.022, p = 0.848), but a trend with diastolic orthostatic BP drops was demonstrated (Spearman’s rho 20.213, p = 0.066). 25837696 Similarly, we found no significant correlations between DWMH 16574785 scores and systolic or diastolic orthostatic BP drops (Spearman’s rho 0.037, p = 0.700 and Spearman’s rho 20.122, p = 0.202, respectively). We performed bivariate logistic regression analyses with the variables in Table 2 as predictors, and being in the highest WMH quartile vs. the lowest quartile as response variable. In the volumetry group, age, hypertension, coronary heart disease and APOEe4 status had p-values ,0.25. As to the semi-quantitative group, age, hypertension, APOEe4 status and previous stroke had p-values ,0.25. None of the p-values for the BP variables approached this level, except diastolic BP drop vs. DWMH score (p = 0.297). The aforementioned variables having p-values ,0.25 were entered into stepwise multiple logistic regression analyses. In the final model, only APOEe4 status remained a significant predictor of the volumes of WMH (Table 3). The model performed well (Omnibus test of model coefficients p,0.05), and the model fit was good (Generalised linear models, Pearson Chi Square p = 0.179). Only age remained a significant predictor of DWMH scores (Table 4). The model performed well (Omnibus test of model coefficients p = 0.010), and the model fit was good (Hosmer and Lemeshow test p = 0.492). We also performed multiple logistic regression analyses (stepwise and forced entry) controlling for scanning site and including variables known from previous studies to be associated with WMH (age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus), in addition to OH or systolic or diastolic BP drops. In these analyses, both with respect to the volumetry group and the semi-quantitative group, only age remained a significant predictor of WMH load (data not shown). However, in some of the models the predictor “MRI centre” achieved borderline 
significance (p = 0.048?.050). When analysing the patients with DLB/PDD separately, we found no significant correlations between Scheltens DWMH scores and systolic or diastolic BP.Compensate for interindividual differences in total brain volumes, we calculated the ratios of volumes of WMH to total brain volumes, using these in the statistical analyses. In the present study, we used only the ratios of total WMH volumes, which have been shown to be highly correlated with regional WMH volumes [37]. Visual assessment of WMH. MRI’s were also rated visually, using the Scheltens scale [38], by an experienced rater (OJG), blind to clinical data. According to the Scheltens scale, white matter changes (WMC) are subdivided into periventricular WMC and deep WMC, and deep WMC are further subdivided into deep WMH (DWMH), basal ganglia WMH (BGH) and infratentorial hyperintensities (IT) [39]. In the statistical analyses, we used only the DWMH scores, because these have been associated with (orthostatic) BP drop in previous studies [15,17]. Inter-rater reliability with another experienced rater (MKB) was evaluated, based on 12 scans, finding an ICC of 0.923.no significant differences between those belonging to the highest and lowest DWMH score quartiles. We did not find any significant association between a history of hypertension and having OH at baseline (Pearson Chi Square 0.224, df 1, p = 0.636).Associations between WMH and OHThere was no significant correlation between WMH volume ratios and the systolic orthostatic BP drops (Spearman’s rho 0.022, p = 0.848), but a trend with diastolic orthostatic BP drops was demonstrated (Spearman’s rho 20.213, p = 0.066). 25837696 Similarly, we found no significant correlations between DWMH 16574785 scores and systolic or diastolic orthostatic BP drops (Spearman’s rho 0.037, p = 0.700 and Spearman’s rho 20.122, p = 0.202, respectively). We performed bivariate logistic regression analyses with the variables in Table 2 as predictors, and being in the highest WMH quartile vs. the lowest quartile as response variable. In the volumetry group, age, hypertension, coronary heart disease and APOEe4 status had p-values ,0.25. As to the semi-quantitative group, age, hypertension, APOEe4 status and previous stroke had p-values ,0.25. None of the p-values for the BP variables approached this level, except diastolic BP drop vs. DWMH score (p = 0.297). The aforementioned variables having p-values ,0.25 were entered into stepwise multiple logistic regression analyses. In the final model, only APOEe4 status remained a significant predictor of the volumes of WMH (Table 3). The model performed well (Omnibus test of model coefficients p,0.05), and the model fit was good (Generalised linear models, Pearson Chi Square p = 0.179). 
Only age remained a significant predictor of DWMH scores (Table 4). The model performed well (Omnibus test of model coefficients p = 0.010), and the model fit was good (Hosmer and Lemeshow test p = 0.492). We also performed multiple logistic regression analyses (stepwise and forced entry) controlling for scanning site and including variables known from previous studies to be associated with WMH (age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus), in addition to OH or systolic or diastolic BP drops. In these analyses, both with respect to the volumetry group and the semi-quantitative group, only age remained a significant predictor of WMH load (data not shown). However, in some of the models the predictor “MRI centre” achieved borderline significance (p = 0.048?.050). When analysing the patients with DLB/PDD separately, we found no significant correlations between Scheltens DWMH scores and systolic or diastolic BP.