Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Research Gaps and Controversies in Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review
Asken BM, Sullan MJ, DeKosky ST, Jaffee MS, Bauer RM.. JAMA neurology, 2017-10-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Importance Scientific and lay interest in negative outcomes associated with exposure to repetitive brain trauma (RBT) continues to strengthen. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy is a tauopathy associated with RBT that has become inextricably linked to conversations about sport-related concussion and mild traumatic brain injury. By comparison, defining the clinical syndrome(s) associated with CTE and the necessary and sufficient symptoms needed for its diagnosis lags behind. The absence of validated in vivo biomarkers of pathological characteristics of CTE and longitudinal tracking with neuropsychological evaluation remains a significant hurdle. Conclusions and relevance Available data, while limited and complicated by selection bias, indicate that exposure to RBT represents the greatest risk factor for CTE pathological features, although clinicopathological correlates and the nature of onset and progression of symptoms are largely unknown. Considering aspects of cognitive reserve is likely essential for both interpreting cognitive outcomes associated with CTE and for developing preventive treatment programs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Asken, B. M., Sullan, M. J., DeKosky, S. T., Jaffee, M. S., & Bauer, R. M. (2017). Research Gaps and Controversies in Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2396
Vancouver
Asken BM, Sullan MJ, DeKosky ST, Jaffee MS, Bauer RM. Research Gaps and Controversies in Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review. JAMA neurology. 2017. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2396. PMID: 28975240.
BibTeX
@article{asken2017-28975240,
author = {Asken, B. M. and Sullan, M. J. and DeKosky, S. T. and Jaffee, M. S. and Bauer, R. M.},
title = {{Research Gaps and Controversies in Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review}},
journal = {JAMA neurology},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2396},
pmid = {28975240},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2396}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Importance Scientific and lay interest in negative outcomes associated with exposure to repetitive brain trauma (RBT) continues to strengthen.
- Chronic traumatic encephalopathy is a tauopathy associated with RBT that has become inextricably linked to conversations about sport-related concussion and mild traumatic brain injury.
- By comparison, defining the clinical syndrome(s) associated with CTE and the necessary and sufficient symptoms needed for its diagnosis lags behind.
- The absence of validated in vivo biomarkers of pathological characteristics of CTE and longitudinal tracking with neuropsychological evaluation remains a significant hurdle.
- Conclusions and relevance Available data, while limited and complicated by selection bias, indicate that exposure to RBT represents the greatest risk factor for CTE pathological features, although clinicopathological correlates and the nature of onset and progression of symptoms are largely unknown.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 28975240) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 Disease mechanisms
Also in Disease mechanisms
128 studies in the library are filed under Disease mechanisms with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Disease mechanisms hub.