Neuropsychological test performance in former college and professional American football players
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Repetitive head impacts from American football have been associated with long‐term cognitive symptoms. The late neuropsychological profiles of this population is not well‐characterized. Research has relied on retrospective informant reports and/or has been small samples of former professional players. We describe objective neuropsychological test performance in former college and professional American football players. Methods Male (45‐74 years) former National Football League (n=107) and college football players (n=59) from the DIAGNOSE‐CTE Research Project completed a neuropsychological test battery, Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and Quick Dementia Rating Scale (QDRS). Neuropsychological test scores were converted to T‐scores using age, sex, and/or education‐adjusted normative data. T‐scores<35 defined impairment. Participants were enrolled across the spectrum of symptom severity (asymptomatic to dementia). Individuals without decisional capacity were excluded. Participants with missing data (n=4) and who scored <45 on Test of Memory Malingering Trial 2 (n=10) were excluded. Results 108 (65.1%) identified as White and 53 (31.9%) as Black. Mean education years was 16.76 (SD=1.48). Fourteen (8.4%) and 6 (3.6%) reported diagnostic history of ADHD and learning disability, respectively. Average Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 24.96 (SD=3.17); 85 (51.2%) scored <26. Impairment rates were highest for learning and episodic memory. On Neuropsychological Assessment Battery List Learning, 29.5% were impaired on Immediate recall, 36.1% on Short Delay, and 44.0% on Long Delay Recall. Impairment rates for Craft Story Immediate and Delayed Recall (Paraphrase) were 15.7% and 18.7%, respectively. 19.9% and 15.7% were impaired on learning and delayed recall of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test‐Revised. Impairments were frequent on the Multilingual Naming Test (20.5%), Trail Making Test Parts B (19.3%) and A (18.1%), Animal Fluency (15.7%), and Number Span Backward (15.1%). Impairments were less common (<10%) for phonemic fluency, planning, basic attention, and visual‐perceptual abilities, Mean FAQ was 3.11 (SD=5.14); 23 (13.9%) had an FAQ >9. Based on QDRS scores, 66 (39.8%) had mild cognitive impairment, 44 (26.5%) mild dementia, and 6 (3.6%) moderate dementia. Conclusions In these former American football players, neuropsychological impairments were most frequent in episodic memory, followed by confrontation naming and executive function. Further research is needed to delineate this population’s unique neuropsychological profile.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».