1‐ versus 2‐test criteria for cognitive impairment and associations with CSF and imaging markers in former American football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Clinically meaningful cognitive impairment has typically been defined as a single impaired test score, but this approach is prone to false‐positive errors. Examining two test scores at a lower threshold (i.e., using neuropsychological criteria) can improve diagnostic reliability and has shown stronger associations with biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive impairment in episodic memory and/or executive functioning is a core feature of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). However, there remains a need to improve the specificity of TES criteria. We applied 1‐ vs. 2‐test criteria for cognitive impairment in former American football players to examine whether 2‐test criteria showed stronger associations with biomarkers of tau, axonal injury, and neurodegeneration. Method 169 male former American football players from the DIAGNOSE CTE Research Project completed neuropsychological assessment, lumbar puncture, and MRI (see Table). Episodic memory measures were delayed recall from Craft Story, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test, and NAB List Learning. Executive functioning measures were FAS, Stroop Interference, NAB Mazes, and Trails B. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was measured using Lumipulse technology (p‐tau, t‐tau) and an in‐house ELISA (neurofilament light [NfL]). Hippocampal volumes were extracted from structural MRI using Freesurfer 7.1. Cognitive impairment was identified by 1‐test criteria (≥1.5 SD below norms on one test in either domain) and 2‐test criteria (>1 SD below norms on two tests within a domain). Regressions adjusting for age, race, education, and APOE ε4 status assessed whether meeting 1‐ or 2‐test criteria, separately, predicted log‐transformed CSF p‐tau181, p‐tau231, t‐tau, and NfL, and hippocampal volumes. Result 37 of the 99 football players that were impaired by 1‐test criteria did not meet 2‐test criteria, and four uniquely met 2‐test but not 1‐test criteria (see Figure). Cognitive impairment by 2‐test but not 1‐test criteria predicted higher log‐CSF NfL (2‐test: B = 0.24, p = .007; 1‐test: B = 0.06, p = .53), smaller left hippocampal volume (2‐test: B = ‐195.84, p = .01; 1‐test: B = ‐131.52, p = .08), and smaller right hippocampal volume (2‐test: B = ‐161.19, p = .045; 1‐test: B = ‐134.88, p = .08). Neither criterion predicted p‐tau181, p‐tau231, or t‐tau. Conclusion 2‐test criteria demonstrated stronger associations between cognitive impairment and markers of axonal injury and neurodegeneration. Incorporating multiple test scores to identify cognitive impairment could improve diagnostic specificity in TES.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".