Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma and MRI biomarkers capture neuronal damage in former professional boxers
Suzie Kamps, Suzan van Amerongen, Elena R Blujdea, Marloes I Hoppen, Bram Bongers, Kasper H Schelvis, Dewi K Caton, Marsh Königs et al.. Scientific reports, 2025-06-06
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Repetitive Head Impacts (RHI) in boxing may increase the risk for neuronal damage. We evaluated blood-based biomarkers for neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathology, clinical features, and MRI biomarkers in former professional boxers compared to patients with AD or patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). Nine former boxers were compared to age-matched patients (without single TBI or RHI) with biomarker confirmed AD (N = 15) or SCD (N = 14). Plasma samples were analyzed for amyloid beta (Aβ)42, Aβ42/40 ratio, phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, p-tau217, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) concentrations. Brain MRI images were processed through Freesurfer to compute disease-related regions-of-interest (ROIs) for AD, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), or chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Cognitive performance was assessed in memory and executive functioning (EF) domains. Five boxers had follow-up measurements after ~ 7 years. Former boxers had higher plasma GFAP, p-tau181 and p-tau217 than patients with SCD, lower volumes in all pre-specified disease-related brain regions. No differences on neuropsychological test scores between boxers and those with SCD were observed. Longitudinal analysis in the boxer group demonstrated elevation of plasma NfL and p-tau181 over time. The current study suggests the presence of biological processes indicative for neurodegeneration in former boxers, without evident clinical decline. Plasma GFAP, p-tau181 and p-tau217 may be promising biomarkers for indicating risk for neuronal damage following RHI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kamps, S., van Amerongen, S., Blujdea, E. R., Hoppen, M. I., Bongers, B., Schelvis, K. H., et al. (2025). Plasma and MRI biomarkers capture neuronal damage in former professional boxers. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93066-6
Vancouver
Kamps S, van Amerongen S, Blujdea ER, Hoppen MI, Bongers B, Schelvis KH, et al. Plasma and MRI biomarkers capture neuronal damage in former professional boxers. Scientific reports. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-93066-6. PMID: 40481074.
BibTeX
@article{kamps2025-40481074,
author = {Kamps, Suzie and van Amerongen, Suzan and Blujdea, Elena R and Hoppen, Marloes I and Bongers, Bram and Schelvis, Kasper H and Caton, Dewi K and Königs, Marsh and others},
title = {{Plasma and MRI biomarkers capture neuronal damage in former professional boxers}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-025-93066-6},
pmid = {40481074},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93066-6}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We evaluated blood-based biomarkers for neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathology, clinical features, and MRI biomarkers in former professional boxers compared to patients with AD or patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD).
- Nine former boxers were compared to age-matched patients (without single TBI or RHI) with biomarker confirmed AD (N = 15) or SCD (N = 14).
- Longitudinal analysis in the boxer group demonstrated elevation of plasma NfL and p-tau181 over time.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants15
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 15 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40481074) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 37 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
697 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 697 tagged studies.