ArticleNature medicine2026
Performance of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome criteria in identifying individuals with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The discovery of chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC) in the brains of former athletes has generated an explosion in public and scientific interest. As CTE-NC can only be diagnosed postmortem, consensus diagnostic criteria have been developed for the proposed clinical correlate, that is, traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). However, the diagnostic accuracy of TES criteria in predicting CTE-NC remains unproven and considerable concerns exist regarding the specificity of proposed clinical features. Here we reviewed antemortem clinical records for 1,038 cases in a neurodegenerative brain bank. Neuropathological evaluation for CTE-NC was then conducted in all cases. In total, 25 (2.4%) cases fulfilled the criteria for a diagnosis of TES, of which six demonstrated CTE-NC (positive predictive value = 24.0%, 95% confidence interval 9.4-45.1%). Of the remaining 1,013 cases, CTE-NC was present in seven (0.69%). The diagnostic accuracy of TES for CTE-NC was driven by exposure to repetitive head impacts rather than proposed clinical features. There was no difference in the prevalence of core or supportive clinical features of TES among cases with CTE-NC compared to a matched sample. The poor performance of TES criteria raises substantial concern for its potential negative psychological impact on current and former contact sport athletes, who may be incorrectly diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42135530What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.