White matter hyperintensities in former American football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The presentation, risk factors, and etiologies of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in people exposed to repetitive head impacts are unknown. We examined the burden and distribution of WMH, and their association with years of play, age of first exposure, and clinical function in former American football players. METHODS: A total of 149 former football players and 53 asymptomatic unexposed participants (all men, 45-74 years) completed fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging, neuropsychological testing, and self-report neuropsychiatric measures. Lesion Segmentation Toolbox estimated WMH. Analyses were performed in the total sample and stratified by age 60. RESULTS: In older but not younger participants, former football players had greater total, frontal, temporal, and parietal log-WMH compared to asymptomatic unexposed men. In older but not younger former football players, greater log-WMH was associated with younger age of first exposure to football and worse executive function. DISCUSSION: In older former football players, WMH may have unique presentations, risk factors, and etiologies. HIGHLIGHTS: Older but not younger former football players had greater total, frontal, temporal, and parietal lobe white matter hyperintensities (WMH) compared to same-age asymptomatic unexposed men. Younger age of first exposure to football was associated with greater WMH in older but not younger former American football players. In former football players, greater WMH was associated with worse executive function and verbal memory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".