Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 427

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Apolipoprotein E ∈4 Associated With Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury in Boxing

Jordan, Barry D.·1997·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

Context. —Given the similarities between Alzheimer disease and dementia pugilistica, we evaluated the relationship between apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and chronic traumatic brain injury (CTBI) in boxers to determine whether there is a genetic susceptibility to the effects of head trauma. Objective. —To assess the relationship between CTBI andAPOEgenotype in boxers. Design and Setting. —Clinical characterization of 24 volunteer and 6 referred boxers in an outpatient setting. Participants. —Thirty professional boxers aged 23 to 76 years underwent neurologic and behavioral assessment in conjunction withAPOEgenotyping. Main Outcome Measures. —Apolipoprotein E genotype was examined in relationship to measures of CTBI. A10-point clinical rating scale (0-9), the Chronic Brain Injury (CBI) scale, was devised to assess the severity of traumatic encephalopathy associated with boxing. Boxers with abnormal CTBI scores were further classified on the basis of whether their impairments were possibly or probably related to boxing. Scores were analyzed in relation to boxing exposure (number of bouts) andAPOEgenotype. Results. —Among the 30 boxers, 11 were found to be normal (CBI score=0), 12 showed mild deficits (CBI score=1-2), 4 were moderately impaired (CBI score=3-4), and 3 showed signs of severe impairment (CBI score >4). High-exposure boxers (ie, those with ≥12 professional bouts) had significantly higher CBI scores (mean [SD], 2.6 [1.9]) than low-exposure boxers (mean [SD], 0.3 [0.7]) (P<.001), indicating that neurologic impairment as measured by the CBI scale seems related to boxing exposure. TheAPOEgenotype frequencies of the study population were approximately the same as those found in the general population. Boxers with low exposure had mean CBI scores of 0.33, irrespective ofAPOEgenotype. However, high-exposure boxers with anAPOE∈4 allele had significantly greater CBI scores (mean [SD], 3.9 [2.3]) than high-exposure boxers withoutAPOE∈4 (mean [SD], 1.8 [1.2]) (P=.04). All boxers with severe impairment possessed at least 1APOE∈4 allele. The tendency for greater CTBI among those with both high exposure and an ∈4 allele was statistically significant at theP<.001 level. Conclusions. —These preliminary findings suggest that possession of anAPOE∈4 allele may be associated with increased severity of chronic neurologic deficits in high-exposure boxers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03550020068040

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jordan, B. D.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1997-07-09
Volume
278
Issue
2
Pages
136
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4294747801
Cited by
427
References
0
FWCI
13.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.