Cited by 18Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics

Assessing the Limitations and Biases in the Current Understanding of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

Schwab, Nicole, Hazrati, Lili-Naz·2018·Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is considered to be a progressive neurodegenerative disease caused by mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Recently there has been a significant amount of media attention surrounding the commonness of CTE in professional athletes, particularly American football, based on several postmortem case series. However, despite the persuasive claims made by the media about CTE, research on the disease and the effects of mTBI in general remain in its infancy. Commonly cited case series studying CTE are limited by methodological biases, pathological inconsistencies, insufficient clinical data, and a reliance on inherently biased postmortem data. These case series do not allow for the collection of any epidemiological data and are not representative of the general population. The exaggerated assumptions and assertions taken from these studies run the risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for individuals who believe they are at risk and have the potential to negatively influence sports-related policymaking. This review outlines the status and limitations of recent CTE case series and calls for future prospective, longitudinal studies to further characterize the pathological and clinical hallmarks of CTE.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/jad-180373

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 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?

  • A major gap in understanding mTBI-associated brain dysfunction is the discordance between pathology load and severity of symptoms, often in younger individuals: cases with head trauma often have microscopic foci of proteinopathy yet present with severe and diverse symptoms.

    “However, a major gap in knowledge in our understanding of mTBI-associated brain dysfunction is the discordance between the pathology load and severity of symptoms, often in younger individuals: cases with a history of head trauma often have microscopic foci of proteinopathy, yet present with severe and diverse symptoms [134].”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwab, N., & Hazrati, L.-N.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Hazrati, Lili-Naz
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
Published
2018-06-28
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
1067-1076
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W2883180045
Cited by
18
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Keywords
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, mild traumatic brain injury
MeSH terms
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Trauma Severity Indices, Bias, Young Adult

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