Cited by 110Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Tau immunohistochemistry in acute brain injury

Smith, C., Graham, D. I., Murray, L. S., Nicoll, J. A. R.·2003·Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology

Abstract

Epidemiological studies have identified a history of head injury as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. However, the neuropathological mechanism underlying this relationship is as yet unclear. Neuronal cytoskeletal changes in the form of neurofibrillary tangles and neuropil threads have recently been demonstrated in young men who had sustained repetitive head injury and subsequently died in their 20s. In addition, recent experimental studies have found accumulation of tau within neuronal somata and damaged axons following diffuse brain injury. We hypothesized that tau‐immunoreactive tangles may be present in the brains of patients who died after a single acute blunt head injury. A total of 45 cases of fatal head injury were immunostained for tau. They comprised nine groups (n = 5 for each group) separated by age (0–19 years, 20–50 years, 50 + years) and survival time (< 24 h, 24 h−1 week, 1 week−1 month) and were compared with age‐matched controls. Subtle alterations in tau immunoreactivity, for example, in oligodendrocytes, were present in some head injury cases but not controls. However, neurofibrillary tangles did not appear more prevalent after traumatic brain injury (TBI) when compared with age‐matched controls. Although alterations in tau immunoreactivity may occur which warrant further study, neurofibrillary tangles were not more prevalent after a single fatal episode of TBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2990.2003.00488.x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, C., Graham, D. I., Murray, L. S., & Nicoll, J. A. R.
Affiliations
  • Western General Hospital (GB)
  • Southern General Hospital (GB)
  • Western Infirmary (GB)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, C.
Venue
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-10
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
496-502
ISSN
  • 0305-1846 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2990
OpenAlex
W1998068768
Cited by
110
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
tau protein, traumatic brain injury, neurofibrillary tangles, neuropil threads, acute head injury, Alzheimer's disease risk, repetitive head injury, diffuse brain injury, oligodendrocytes, fatal head injury
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain Injuries, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Infant, Middle Aged, Neurofibrillary Tangles, tau Proteins, Neuropil Threads

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