Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome in the Late Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury (LETBI) study cohort
====================================================================================================

* Kristen Dams-O’Connor
* Enna Selmanovic
* Ariel Pruyser
* Lisa Spielman
* Ashlyn Bulas
* Eric Watson
* Jesse Mez
* Jeanne M. Hoffman

## ABSTRACT

**Importance** Traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES), the suggested clinical manifestation of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), is believed to result from repetitive head impacts (RHI) and the prevalence of TES and its component symptoms have not been thoroughly investigated in individuals with single TBI.

**Objective** To use prospectively collected data to operationalize TES per consensus research diagnostic criteria and examine the rates of TES in a sample of individuals with isolated TBI, a subset of whom also had RHI exposure, and to determine whether any demographic or injury factors predicted likelihood of meeting TES diagnostic criteria.

**Design** 295 participants from the Late Effects of TBI (LETBI) study had complete data for all key variables. The sample was categorized by TBI severity and presence of RHI history leading to 6 groups (those with isolated mild, moderate, and severe TBI, with and without RHI). Chi-squared tests were used to compare the proportion of each group that met each of the core clinical criteria overall TES diagnosis. Binary logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of demographic and injury characteristics on TES diagnosis. Levels of functional dependence and levels of certainty for CTE neuropathology in the sample were characterized and applied with the core clinical features to explore consensus-based provisional levels of certainty of CTE pathology across study groups.

**Results** In addition to history of TBI, 141 (47.7%) participants had RHI exposure meeting theTES criteria exposure threshold. In the full sample, 56.9%, 33.2% and 45.7% of participants met TES core criterion of cognitive impairment, neurobehavioral dysregulation, and progressive course of clinical features, respectively. Overall, 15.2% of this LETBI sample had substantial RHI exposure and met all 3 clinical features, meeting consensus-based TES criteria. When RHI exposure criterion was lifted, 33.5% of the LETBI sample with isolated TBI met all core clinical criteria. No significant differences were found in clinical diagnostic criteria between individuals with and without RHI exposure. When exploring consensus-based Levels of Diagnostic Certainty, rates of suggestive, possible, and probable CTE were found to be 2.7%, 6.8%, and 5.8%, respectively. No injury or demographic variables significantly predicted the likelihood of meeting all 3 Core Clinical Criteria for TES.

**Conclusion** In this community based TBI sample, we found high rates of TES clinical features among those with and without RHI, across TBI across injury severity groups. Presence of TES core clinical features was greatest among those with isolated TBI, suggesting that chronic and sometimes progressive sequelae of TBI are similar to those described in TES, but may reflect a distinct pathobiological process from CTE neuropathologic change which is very rarely seen in isolated TBI. Findings emphasize the centrality of RHI exposure to the TES diagnostic criteria. Lifetime exposure to TBI and RHI should be well characterized in studies of TES and post-TBI neuropathologies to advance understanding of the underlying biology of progressive clinical symptoms. This work supports further refinement of TES diagnostic criteria, which will require defining RHI exposure thresholds associated with CTE neuropathologic change.

## INTRODUCTION

The adverse effects of exposure to repetitive head impacts (RHI) were described in H.S. Martland’s 1928 JAMA publication describing a “peculiar condition” in boxers, characterized by cognitive impairment and behaviors resembling intoxication.1 These early clinical observations in boxers,1–4 which developed in some cases following a single “knockout” bout ending in traumatic brain injury (TBI),5 are often cited in contemporary studies of postmortem chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) neuropathology in American football players,6 implying that the same underlying disease process (and clinical manifestations thereof) is being described.

Consensus-based definitions of CTE neuropathological criteria have now been established7 and further refined8 to include an accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau in neurons and astroglia at the depths of cortical sulci and around small vessels. A central goal of refinement efforts was to distinguish CTE from other neurodegenerative and age-related processes by identifying pathognomonic lesion(s). CTE is regarded as a progressive neurodegenerative disease resulting from prolonged exposure to RHI. The vast majority of studies have primarily included male American-style football players, and far less is known about CTE or its potential clinical correlates in other RHI- and TBI-exposed populations.

Parallel efforts have endeavored to characterize the constellation of clinical symptoms described in individuals who have been posthumously diagnosed with CTE9–13 to permit in-vivo diagnosis. Research diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES), the proposed clinical manifestation of CTE neuropathology, were described by Montenigro and colleagues in 201413 based on clinical symptoms described in 202 published cases with CTE neuropathology. Central features included impairments in cognition, behavior, and mood.13 Concerns about over-diagnosing TES per these broad criteria are articulated in a series of papers14–17 that applied the criteria13 to data from the United States (U.S.) National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCSR) study. Up to 83% of men with a recent major depressive episode in the NCSR cohort met TES criteria,15 up to 65% with intermittent explosive disorder met TES criteria;15 in the full NCSR sample, up to 12% met TES criteria, with particularly high rates in certain subgroups.14 A central limitation of these studies,14–17 was the unavailability of data on lifetime exposure to head trauma, which effectively prevents application of the foundational exposure criteria to the dataset.

In 2019, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) convened a Consensus Workshop consisting of 20 clinician scientists with relevant expertise to define in vivo TES diagnostic criteria.18 The panelists reviewed summaries of clinical data gathered through retrospective informant interviews and available medical records from cases with postmortem diagnosis of CTE per 2016 consensus diagnostic criteria,7 alongside data on the predictive validity of informant-reported clinical symptoms for CTE neuropathology from 298 postmortem cases. The consensus panel identified core clinical criteria for TES as cognitive impairment and/or neurobehavioral dysregulation, and progressive course of decline.

The core clinical symptoms of TES overlap considerably with hallmark clinical sequelae of isolated TBI: impaired episodic memory secondary to slowed processing speed; executive dysfunction including inattention, poor decision-making, and difficulty multi-tasking;19–21 neurobehavioral dysregulation characterized by impulsivity, poor judgement, and emotional dyscontrol;21, 22 and in a minority, cognitive and functional decline.23–25 Throughout four rounds of a modified Delphi procedure in the NINDS TES workshop, there was considerable discussion around whether a single moderate-severe TBI, in the absence of RHI, should be included in the exposure criterion for TES.18 The panel ultimately decided that single moderate-severe TBI, regardless of number of TBIs, did not meet the exposure criterion, largely due to the paucity of research on the prevalence of CTE among individuals with single moderate-severe TBI.18, 26–28 Substantial overlap in the clinical presentation of individuals with diverse head trauma exposure histories may pose challenges to in-vivo diagnosis of the clinical correlate of CTE, regardless of whether those symptoms have distinct underlying pathophysiology.

Both the 201413 and 201918 TES criteria papers emphasized the need for refinement through additional research. A central challenge is determining how best to use available data to operationalize TES criteria, which were developed using retrospectively-collected narrative information from informants whose loved ones underwent postmortem brain autopsy. Informant descriptions of their loved one’s observable behaviors, from which they make inferences regarding cognitive and emotional symptoms, must be indexed with quantitative performance-based scores, psychometric scales, and cut points based on estimated premorbid abilities and/or comparison to normative reference groups. A blueprint for this process is needed to inform TES criteria refinement efforts.

In the current paper, we apply the consensus-based TES research diagnostic criteria to data gathered from the Late Effects of TBI (LETBI) study. The goals of this work are to illustrate the process of operationalizing these criteria using prospectively collected in-vivo data, and to examine the prevalence of TES diagnostic criteria among individuals with diverse patterns of exposure to RHI and TBI. We investigate whether the core clinical features of TES are more common among those with both RHI and TBI relative to those with isolated TBI only, and we explored whether any demographic or injury factors predicted likelihood of TES diagnosis. We characterized Functional Dependence, and then applied it along with the core clinical features to apply consensus-based provisional levels of certainty of CTE pathology.

## METHODS

### Study design and population

Participants in this study were enrolled in the Late Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury (LETBI) project, an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal brain donor program designed to identify the clinical characteristics and postmortem neuropathology of post-traumatic neurodegeneration.29 Participants are recruited from TBI research registries and from community-based settings. Eligible participants met the following criteria: (1) sustained at least one complicated mild, moderate or severe TBI (defined as a blow to the head resulting in a period of altered mental status or unconsciousness) OR ≥2mild TBIs, (2) are at least 1 year post first head trauma exposure, (3) aged 18 years or older, and (4) are English speaking.30 All participants or their proxies provided written informed consent per protocols approved by institutional programs for the protection of human subjects.

### Head trauma exposure ascertainment

Lifetime history of TBI and/or RHI was characterized using the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire (BISQ)31, a structured interview for lifetime head trauma exposure.31 The BISQ queries blows to the head with 20 contextual recall cues (e.g., in a vehicular accident, on the playground, etc.). For each reported event, subsequent items query the presence and duration of altered mental status and/or unconsciousness, permitting injury severity classification per standard criteria.30 Additional modules characterize duration and age(s) of exposure to RHI sustained in the context of organized contact sports, military service, and intimate partner violence (IPV). For all RHI etiologies, age at start/stop of exposure, and overall duration of exposure is queried. Head trauma exposure history was verified through review of medical records whenever available; neuroimaging records were also used to verify TBI severity classification. Use of these data to determine exposure thresholds for TES criteria is detailed in Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/T1)

Table 1: TES Criteria and Method of Ascertainment and Operationalization within LETBI Study

### LETBI Neurobehavioral Assessment Battery

All participants completed a comprehensive standardized evaluation of cognitive function across multiple domains, behavior, mood, and overall health and function; the LETBI battery is primarily comprised of NIH Common Data Elements (CDEs32; See Table 1) and additional measures selected to overlap with large-scale dementia studies.33–36

### TES Criteria

We used all available data to operationalize diagnostic criteria for TES,18 as described in Table 1. Individuals meeting TES Diagnostic Criteria must have: (1) substantial exposure to RHI; (2) core clinical features of cognitive impairment and/or neurobehavioral dysregulation, AND evidence of a worsening/progressive clinical course; and (3) clinical symptoms cannot be fully accounted for by another disease. Decisions regarding the operational definition of TES criteria were made by expert consensus (KDOC, EW, JH, JM) based on the measures available in the LETBI study and previous literature when applicable.

#### Substantive Exposure to Repetitive Head Impacts

We used BISQ data to define RHI exposure (Criterion 1) per Katz et al., including RHI etiologies that are very prescriptive (e.g., ≥5 years of American Football, ≥2 of which at the high school level or beyond), as well as those that are more exploratory, e.g., “exposure to multiple blast and other explosions,” and “exposure to multiple head impacts over an extended period of time” (see Table 1).

#### Core Clinical Features

As the Katz TES criteria are based primarily on the retrospective report of family members whose loved ones have been diagnosed with CTE neuropathology, defining the core clinical features (Criterion 2)18 with psychometric data collected during life requires clinical judgment. The criteria acknowledge that performance-based data are not always available; as detailed in Table 1, we used a combination of self- and informant-report measures alongside formal neuropsychological test results when available.

Katz et al18 require that 4 indicators must be present to meet criteria for the first Core Clinical Feature, Cognitive Impairment: self- or informant/clinician-reported cognitive impairment, decline from baseline function, deficits in episodic memory and/or executive function, and impaired performance on neuropsychologist testing (when available). We modified a demographic-based algorithm37 to estimate premorbid functioning based on age and education.18, 38, 39 The TES criteria define “substantially impaired performance” on neuropsychological tests as 1.5 standard deviations (SD) below “appropriate norms, accounting for the individual’s estimated premorbid functioning;” we used normative data to calculate standard scores on each measure as detailed in Table 1. Absent clear criteria to define impairment, we used 1.5 SD below normative groups to define domain-specific deficits and global impairment per performance-based tests.

Neurobehavioral dysregulation requires that the following criteria are met: self- or informant/clinician-reported neurobehavioral dysregulation, changes from baseline function, significant and poor regulation/control of emotions and behavior (as defined with examples provided by Katz et al18). We used empirically validated cut-points on psychometric scales when possible, in addition to endorsement of symptoms/behaviors provided as examples in the TES criterion definition (see Table 1).

To operationalize progressive worsening of clinical features, we used objective performance-based data for participants with ≥2 study visits (see Table 1). Absent detailed guidance, we evaluated an operational definition of decline as 1.5 SD worsening of scores between visits. We used measures that specifically asked participants to compare current function to their highest achieved level of post-injury function to distinguish enduring but stable deficits (which might allow an individual to meet criteria for cognitive impairment and/or neurobehavioral dysregulation) from post-recovery decline (i.e., progressive course).

#### Not Fully Accounted for by Other Disorders

The presence of a neurodegenerative, medical, psychiatric, or other condition that “fully” accounts for the core clinical features is exclusionary for a TES diagnosis, but diagnosis of conditions do not otherwise exclude a TES diagnosis (Criterion 3).18 Determination of whether a given condition fully accounts for all symptoms requires case-by-case evaluation. As such, and in the spirit of hypothesis-generation, we present the prevalence of known co-occurring conditions in those with and without RHI who do and do not meet the core clinical TES criteria.

#### Level of Functional Dependence/Dementia

TES criterion 4 outlines five levels of function ranging from to “Severe” to “Independent.” We triangulated ratings from validated assessments of cognitive and social functioning and activities of daily living (see Table 1), and assigned the level of functional dependence corresponding to the lowest (most impaired) reported function across available measures.

### Provisional Levels of Certainty for CTE Pathology

Katz et al18 suggest criteria to facilitate exploration that TES features reflect an underlying diagnosis of CTE. We used available data to operationalize supportive features of likely neuropathology that go beyond TES (i.e. intensity of RHI exposure, functional independence, motor signs, and psychiatric features)18 as outlined in Table 2.

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/T2)

Table 2: Criteria and Supportive Features Used in Determining Provisional Levels of Certainty for CTE Pathology

### Statistical Analysis

Data analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 system.40 We categorized the sample by TBI severity (mild/moderate/severe) and presence of RHI history, thereby forming 6 groups (i.e., those with isolated TBI of each severity, with and without RHI). If a person reported more than one isolated TBI, we grouped them based on their most severe injury. We calculated the proportion of each group that met each of the core clinical criteria; we also examined level of functional dependence and levels of certainty (for CTE neuropathology).18 We explored the proportion of the sample meeting TES criteria if the RHI exposure criteria were lifted to better understand the prevalence of TES clinical criteria in those with isolated TBI. We compared the proportion of the sample who met each of the core clinical criteria and overall TES diagnosis between those with vs. without RHI exposure using chi-squared tests, and calculated the rates of medical and behavioral health conditions among the TBI-RHI groups. We used binary logistic regression models to examine associations of demographic and injury characteristics on TES diagnosis.

## RESULTS

### Sample characteristics

A total of 417 participants were enrolled in the LETBI study as of March 2024, and 295 had complete data on key variables (Figure 1). The mean (SD) age at baseline LETBI visit was 52.6 (15.6) years, mean age at injury was 38.6 (18.8) years, and the sample was 85.1% White, 15.9% Hispanic or Latino, and 64.4% male. Sample demographics are presented by injury exposure history in Table 3, and RHI etiologies are presented in Supplemental table 1.

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/F1)

Figure 1: Flow diagram of data availability for TES Diagnostic Cohort among LETBI participants

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/T3)

Table 3. Sample characteristics by head trauma exposure group.

### TES Criteria and Prevalence

#### Head Trauma Exposure

In addition to TBI, 141 (47.7%) participants had RHI exposure deemed to meet TES criteria (see Table 4).

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/T4)

Table 4: Proportion of sample meeting Core TES Criteria by head trauma exposure group.

#### Core Clinical Features

Overall, 56.9% of the sample met the TES core criterion of cognitive impairment (Table 4). A greater proportion of individuals with moderate TBI+RHI had cognitive impairment compared to those with isolated moderate TBI (69.5% versus 43.7%, respectively) while a lower proportion of those with severe TBI+RHI had cognitive impairment than those with severe TBI alone (45.3% and 64.3%, respectively). Rates were similar in the mild TBI groups with and without RHI.

One third of the full sample (33.2%) met TES criteria for overall neurobehavioral dysregulation. Neurobehavioral symptoms were reported by self or informant by an overwhelming majority of the sample (75.9%), and over half of the sample showed neurobehavioral decline from baseline (51.5%). We found that one third (33.2%) had poor regulation/control of symptoms or behaviors, and about the same proportion were found to have overall neurobehavioral dysregulation (32.9%). The rates across groups ranged from 20.0-47.8% overall; the mild group without RHI had rates consistently above average on all neurobehavioral criteria.

In the total sample, 45.7% of participants met criteria for progressive course of clinical features, with little variability among the TBI severity groups. When separately examining progressive course of cognitive and neurobehavioral features, the former is found to be far more common across all exposure groups (see Table 4). Most individuals with cognitive decline also had neurobehavioral worsening.

#### Level of Functional Dependence/Dementia

Only one quarter of participants met criteria for either functional independence (9.4%) or subtle dependence (15.9%). Participants with mild TBI without RHI showed a surprisingly high level of severe dependence (20.0%) compared to mild TBI with RHI (11.6%), and moderate TBI without RHI (9.3%); however the other groups showed comparable rates of severe dependence (19.5-22.6%)

#### Prevalence of Primary Diagnostic Criteria for TES

The Katz et al.18 TES diagnostic criteria require RHI exposure and all three core clinical criteria; 15.2% of the LETBI sample met TES criteria (Table 4). We explored the prevalence of clinical TES features among those with isolated TBI by lifting the RHI exposure criterion, and found that 33.5% of the LETBI sample met all core clinical criteria. We tested whether there were significant differences between individuals with and without RHI exposure on key criteria, including cognitive impairment (χ2 (1, 295) = 1.56, p = 0.240), neurobehavioral dysregulation (χ2 (1, 295) = 0.70, p = 0.457), progressive course (χ2 (1, 295) = 0.35, p = 0.561), and overall TES criteria (χ2 (1, 295) = 0.33, p = 0.622). We found no significant differences.

#### Provisional Level of Certainty for CTE Pathology

RHI is required for even “suggestive” certainty of CTE, as isolated TBI does not meet the head trauma exposure criteria. In this sample of individuals with TBI, rates of suggestive, possible, and probable were 2.7%, 6.8%, and 5.8%, respectively (see Table 4). When we examined specific criteria, we found that participants with RHI overwhelming met criteria for Substantial RHI (5+ years of exposure), ranging from 78.5-88.0%, and a substantial portion met criteria for Extensive (11+ years; 39.1-53.5%). Just over one quarter of the full sample had motor signs, and there were no consistent patterns by TBI severity or RHI. Over half of the full sample endorsed at least one psychiatric feature (52.5%), again the rates did not differ by TBI or RHI in a discernible pattern.

### Predictors of TES

We found that no injury or demographic variables significantly predicted the likelihood of meeting all 3 Core Clinical Criteria for TES (Table 5). When we limit the sample to those who met TES RHI exposure criteria (n=141), being married (compared to being single) tended to be associated with the likelihood of meeting TES Core Criteria (OR=3.05, p=0.08). No other predictors approached significance.

View this table:
[Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.04.24309955/T5)

Table 5: Summary Model of Selected Candidate Predictors for TES Diagnosis.

### Disease Comorbidity across groups defined by RHI exposure and TES per core criteria

Comorbid medical conditions are presented for descriptive purposes in Supplemental Table 2. Those meeting TES core clinical criteria and RHI exposure criteria had the highest rates of ischemic attacks (6.7%), migraine (42.2%), joint disease (46.7%), behavioral health conditions (17.8%), hearing disorders (2.2%), infectious diseases (4.4%), metabolic disorders (2.2%), and other neurological conditions (8.9%). Rates of epilepsy (18.5%), sleep apnea (24.1%) hypertension (22.2%), cancer (14.8%), coronary disease (16.7%), and respiratory disease (25.9%) were greatest among those who met TES core clinical criteria without RHI exposure.

## DISCUSSION

We applied the Katz et al18 TES diagnostic criteria using prospectively collected data in the LETBI cohort of individuals with isolated TBI, of whom 47.7% also had RHI exposure. Only those with RHI exposure were eligible for TES diagnosis, 15.2% met diagnostic criteria. When considering core clinical features irrespective of RHI exposure, a majority of our cohort met core TES criteria for cognitive impairment (56.9%) and progressive course (45.7%), while 32.9% met core criteria for neurobehavioral dysregulation. A greater proportion of the LETBI cohort met criteria for all 3 core clinical features of TES (Cognitive Impairment, Neurobehavioral Dysregulation, and Progressive Course) if they had isolated TBI compared to those with RHI+TBI. There were no injury or demographic features that predicted likelihood of meeting the core clinical criteria. Those who met full TES diagnostic criteria (i.e., RHI exposure and all 3 TES core clinical criteria) had the greatest rates of comorbid health conditions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use prospectively collected in-vivo data to document the rates of TES clinical features in a community-based sample of individuals with isolated TBI.

It has been previously established that the clinical features of TES are common in clinical and community samples,17, 41, 42 but many prior studies were limited by lack of head trauma exposure data. Current findings indicate that the core clinical features of TES are highly prevalent among those with isolated TBI. Unlike prior studies, however, our findings in a large sample of individuals with TBI with and without RHI underscore the importance of RHI for in-vivo diagnostics of TES. CTE neuropathology is rarely seen in the brain tissue of decedents without RHI exposure43–45 or in cases of individuals with head trauma sustained in etiologies other than contact sports,46–48 suggesting RHI may be a necessary but insufficient condition for the development of CTE neuropathology. When we interpret current findings in the context of extant postmortem studies, they support the TES Consensus panel decision to require RHI, not TBI alone, in the exposure criterion for TES.18 To the extent that CTE neuropathology is unique to RHI, so too should TES criteria. Just as mesothelioma is rarely a diagnostic consideration absent asbestos 49, TES may not be an appropriate diagnosis in those without RHI exposure. Our results suggest that isolated TBI that results in multi-domain clinical impairment may be one of the few clinical conditions that, per current TES criteria,18 may be considered to “fully account” for all in-vivo diagnostic features of TES.

The current finding that RHI is so common in individuals with TBI suggests that TBI exposure should similarly be considered in studies of RHI and CTE to further understand the independent and interactive implications for clinical symptoms and pathological processes. Fifty-six percent of male former contact sport athletes presumed to have RHI met 2014 TES criteria50 and rates were highest (70%) among those with ≥4 TBIs.51 Forty-one percent of professional boxers and mixed martial artists had TES per 2019 criteria,18 and more “knockouts” increased risk.52 Careful review6, 7 of postmortem neuropathology from early studies of boxers53, 54 found CTE (per revised consensus definition7) in less than half of boxers55 whose symptoms defined this disease four decades ago.5,53 It is possible that number of sport- and non-sport-related isolated TBIs sustained in the context of contact sports may reflect (and therefore confound) degree of RHI exposure in ways that are not generalizable to unselected samples. In the current community based LETBI study sample, which did not selectively recruit former contact sport athletes, we find high rates of TES clinical features among those with RHI and TBI across injury severity. That rates of meeting all core TES clinical features were highest among those with isolated TBI in the current sample suggests that chronic and sometimes progressive sequelae of TBI may overshadow symptoms that may not reflect clinical manifestation of CTE neuropathologic change. Failure to carefully measure both lifetime TBI and RHI may result in inaccurate attribution of TES symptoms to CTE neuropathology.9, 56, 57

The need to further refine in-vivo TES diagnostic criteria was well recognized by the 2019 Consensus panel, as reflected by explicit recommendation for researchers to apply these preliminary criteria to existing datasets.18 A recent paper58 used expert adjudication to apply the 2014 TES criteria13 to informant and medical record data and found high sensitivity (0.97) but low specificity (0.21) to CTE neuropathology.8 Cognitive symptoms were particularly predictive of CTE neuropathology.58 Greater duration of contact sport participation (a proxy for RHI exposure) has been found to be directly related to CTE pathological burden, which appears to be associated with symptom severity, at least in symptomatic samples.10–13, 59, 60 If RHI exposure is a key factor that uniquely distinguishes CTE from other pathological processes that contribute to otherwise-indistinguishable clinical symptoms, in-vivo differential diagnosis will require clearly defined and etiologically-specific exposure thresholds for men and women. This work must be conducted in samples with carefully characterized lifetime head trauma exposure, and must include those with and without TBI and RHI. Together with further refinement of TES core clinical criteria, this approach would serve to define exposure thresholds and specific clinical symptoms among those with head trauma who are likely to have CTE neuropathologic change.

Limitations of the current study warrant consideration. The LETBI sample does not currently include individuals with RHI exposure or isolated TBI alone, precluding direct comparison of TES clinical features across distinct exposure etiologies. The LETBI study began before consensus-based TES criteria had been proposed, and study measures were not selected to align with TES criteria. This precluded operationalization of all supportive TES features18 (e.g., delayed onset of symptoms) without using measures used to define other criteria (e.g., progressive course). Duration of RHI sustained in the context of military service and partner violence were not available for the full sample. Incomplete longitudinal data at the time of analyses required definition of change over time per methods described by Katz.18 Small cell sizes across TBI severity and RHI groups requires cautions interpretation of observed differences. Decisions regarding how to use available data to operationalize TES criteria were subject to clinical judgment, and may vary across studies and measures. Finally, absent postmortem autopsy data, it is not possible to directly investigate the sensitivity of TES criteria to CTE neuropathology at this time.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply the consensus-based TES research criteria in a community-based sample of well-characterized participants with a wide range of head trauma exposure histories. When interpreted alongside a growing body of postmortem studies suggesting CTE to be unique to RHI, current findings underscore the potential centrality of RHI as a key exposure criteria for TES diagnosis intended to facilitate in-vivo diagnosis of clinical symptoms reflective of CTE neuropathologic change. There is an urgent need to identify distinct clinical features most closely associated with CTE neuropathologic change so that those at risk for this distinct pathological process can be identified during life. Clinical and biological markers that can be quantified and monitored during life would inform clinical trial selection to facilitate inclusion of individuals whose symptoms are likely driven by the same underlying pathological process. More detailed understanding of RHI exposure thresholds will inform risk tolerance thresholds to allow athletes and others to make informed decisions about RHI exposure limits. As efforts to improve in vivo diagnostics progress, practicing clinicians should use available pharmaceutical and neurobehavioral interventions to address primary symptoms, recognizing that they may not share a common underlying pathophysiology.

## Supporting information

Supplemental Tables [[supplements/309955_file03.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are available upon reasonable request to the authors and to the National Institute of Health's Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research Repository.

*   Received July 4, 2024.
*   Revision received July 4, 2024.
*   Accepted July 5, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Martland HS. PUNCH DRUNK. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1928;91(15):1103–1107. doi:10.1001/jama.1928.02700150029009
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1928.02700150029009&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Millspaugh J. Dementia pugilistica. US Naval Med Bull. 1937;35(297):e303.
    
    

3.  3.Critchley M. Medical aspects of boxing, particularly from a neurological standpoint. British medical journal. 1957;1(5015):357.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czozOiJibWoiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjEvNTAxNS8zNTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wNS8yMDI0LjA3LjA0LjI0MzA5OTU1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

4.  4.Critchley M. Punch-drunk syndromes: the chronic traumatic encephalopathy of boxers. Hommage a Clovis Vincent. 1949:131–145.
    
    

5.  5.Roberts AH. Brain damage in boxers: a study of the prevalence of traumatic encephalopathy among ex-professional boxers. Pitman Medical & Scientific Publishing Company, Limited; 1969.
    
    

6.  6.McKee AC, Abdolmohammadi B, Stein TD. Chapter 28 - The neuropathology of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. In: Hainline B, Stern RA, eds. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Elsevier; 2018:297–307.
    
    

7.  7.McKee AC, Cairns NJ, Dickson DW, et al. The first NINDS/NIBIB consensus meeting to define neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Acta Neuropathol. Jan 2016;131(1):75–86. doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1515-z
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00401-015-1515-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26667418&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

8.  8.Bieniek KF, Cairns NJ, Crary JF, et al. The Second NINDS/NIBIB Consensus Meeting to Define Neuropathological Criteria for the Diagnosis of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. Feb 22 2021;80(3):210–219. doi:10.1093/jnen/nlab001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnen/nlab001&link_type=DOI) 

9.  9.McKee AC, Cantu RC, Nowinski CJ, et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. Jul 2009;68(7):709–35. doi:10.1097/NEN.0b013e3181a9d503
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/NEN.0b013e3181a9d503&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19535999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

10. 10.Jordan BD. The clinical spectrum of sport-related traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurol. Apr 2013;9(4):222–30. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.33
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrneurol.2013.33&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23478462&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

11. 11.Reams N, Eckner JT, Almeida AA, et al. A Clinical Approach to the Diagnosis of Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome: A Review. JAMA Neurol. Jun 1 2016;73(6):743–9. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.5015
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.5015&link_type=DOI) 

12. 12.Victoroff J. Traumatic encephalopathy: Review and provisional research diagnostic criteria. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;32:211–224. doi:10.3233/NRE-130839
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiaW9zbnJlIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjMyLzIvMjExIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMDUvMjAyNC4wNy4wNC4yNDMwOTk1NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

13. 13.Montenigro PH, Baugh CM, Daneshvar DH, et al. Clinical subtypes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy: literature review and proposed research diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy. 2014/09/24 2014;6(5):68. doi:10.1186/s13195-014-0068-z
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13195-014-0068-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25580160&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

14. 14.Iverson GL, Gardner AJ. Symptoms of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome are common in the US general population. Brain Commun. 2021;3(1):fcab001. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcab001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/braincomms/fcab001&link_type=DOI) 

15. 15.Iverson GL, Gardner AJ. Risk for Misdiagnosing Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Men With Anger Control Problems. Original Research. Frontiers in Neurology. 2020-July-24 2020;11doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00739
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fneur.2020.00739&link_type=DOI) 

16. 16.Iverson GL, Gardner AJ. Risk of misdiagnosing chronic traumatic encephalopathy in men with depression. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2020;32(2):139–146.
    
    

17. 17.Iverson GL, Merz ZC, Terry DP. Examining the research criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome in middle-aged men from the general population who played contact sports in high school. Frontiers in neurology. 2021;12:632618.
    
    

18. 18.Katz DI, Bernick C, Dodick DW, et al. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome. Neurology. May 4 2021;96(18):848–863. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000011850
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/wnl.0000000000011850&link_type=DOI) 

19. 19.Rabinowitz AR, Levin HS. Cognitive sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Psychiatric Clinics. 2014;37(1):1–11.
    
    

20. 20.Klein M, Houx PJ, Jolles J. Long-term persisting cognitive sequelae of traumatic brain injury and the effect of age. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1996;184(8):459–467. doi:10.1097/00005053-199608000-00002
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005053-199608000-00002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8752074&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VD33100002&link_type=ISI) 

21. 21.McAllister TW. Neurobehavioral sequelae of traumatic brain injury: evaluation and management. World Psychiatry. 2008;7(1):3–10. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2008.tb00139.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/j.2051-5545.2008.tb00139.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18458777&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

22. 22.Nicholl J, LaFrance WC, Jr.. Neuropsychiatric sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Semin Neurol. Jul 2009;29(3):247–55. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1223878
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-0029-1223878&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19551601&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

23. 23.Rao V, Lyketsos C. Neuropsychiatric sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Psychosomatics. 2000;41(2):95–103.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.psy.41.2.95&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10749946&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085920700002&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Corkin S, Rosen TJ, Sullivan EV, Clegg RA. Penetrating head injury in young adulthood exacerbates cognitive decline in later years. Journal of Neuroscience. 1989;9(11):3876–3883.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjkvMTEvMzg3NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzA1LzIwMjQuMDcuMDQuMjQzMDk5NTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

25. 25.Millis SR, Rosenthal M, Novack TA, et al. Long-term neuropsychological outcome after traumatic brain injury. The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation. 2001;16(4):343–355.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00001199-200108000-00005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11461657&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170278000005&link_type=ISI) 

26. 26.Selmanovic E, Pruyser, A., Cortes, E., Thorn, E., Goldstein, A., Crary, J.F., Folkerth, R., Dams-O’Connor, K. POB.11.01 Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Neuropathologic Change Is Rare in Decedents With Isolated Traumatic Brain Injury: Abstracts Neurotrauma 2024 San Francisco, California. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2024:A-1-A-121. doi:10.1089/neu.2024.41112.abstracts
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2024.41112.abstracts&link_type=DOI) 

27. 27.Ling H, Holton JL, Shaw K, Davey K, Lashley T, Revesz T. Histological evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in a large series of neurodegenerative diseases. Acta Neuropathol. Dec 2015;130(6):891–3. doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1496-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00401-015-1496-y&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26497674&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

28. 28.Iverson GL, Luoto TM, Karhunen PJ, Castellani RJ. Mild Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Neuropathology in People With No Known Participation in Contact Sports or History of Repetitive Neurotrauma. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. Jul 1 2019;78(7):615–625. doi:10.1093/jnen/nlz045
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnen/nlz045&link_type=DOI) 

29. 29.Edlow BL, Keene CD, Perl DP, et al. Multimodal Characterization of the Late Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Methodological Overview of the Late Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury Project. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2018/07/15 2018;35(14):1604–1619. doi:10.1089/neu.2017.5457
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2017.5457&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

30. 30.30. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Concussion/Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(6):Cp1–68.
    
    

31. 31.Dams-O’Connor K, Cantor JB, Brown M, Dijkers MP, Spielman LA, Gordon WA. Screening for traumatic brain injury: findings and public health implications. The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation. Nov-Dec 2014;29(6):479–489. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000099
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/HTR.0000000000000099&link_type=DOI) 

32. 32.Maas AI, Harrison-Felix CL, Menon D, et al. Common data elements for traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the interagency working group on demographics and clinical assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Nov 2010;91(11):1641–9. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.232
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.232&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21044707&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

33. 33.Kukull WA, Higdon R, Bowen JD, et al. Dementia and Alzheimer disease incidence: a prospective cohort study. Arch Neurol. Nov 2002;59(11):1737–46. doi:10.1001/archneur.59.11.1737
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.59.11.1737&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12433261&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179175800010&link_type=ISI) 

34. 34.Beekly DL, Ramos EM, van Belle G, et al. The national Alzheimer’s coordinating center (NACC) database: an Alzheimer disease database. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders. 2004;18(4):270–277.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15592144&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

35. 35.Beekly DL, Ramos EM, Lee WW, et al. The National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) database: the uniform data set. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders. 2007;21(3):249–258.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/WAD.0b013e318142774e&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17804958&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

36. 36.Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC. The MIDUS national survey: An overview. How healthy are we. 2004:1–36.
    
    

37. 37.Wilson RS, Rosenbaum G, Brown G, Rourke D, Whitman D, Grisell J. An index of premorbid intelligence. J Consult Clin Psychol. Dec 1978;46(6):1554–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-006X.46.6.1554&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=730921&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1978GF32800066&link_type=ISI) 

38. 38.Gasquoine PG. Race-norming of neuropsychological tests. Neuropsychol Rev. Jun 2009;19(2):250–62. doi:10.1007/s11065-009-9090-5
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11065-009-9090-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19294515&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

39. 39.Possin KL, Tsoy E, Windon CC. Perils of Race-Based Norms in Cognitive Testing: The Case of Former NFL Players. JAMA Neurol. Apr 1 2021;78(4):377–378. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4763
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4763&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Inc. SI. SAS/ACCESS® 9.4 Interface to ADABAS. SAS Institute Inc.
    
    

41. 41.Iverson GL, Gardner AJ. Symptoms of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome are common in the US general population. Brain. 2021;3(1):fcab001.
    
    

42. 42.Terry DP, Jo J, Williams K, Davis P, Iverson GL, Zuckerman SL. Examining the New Consensus Criteria for Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2024/04/01 2024;41(7-8):957–968. doi:10.1089/neu.2023.0601
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2023.0601&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Postupna N, Rose SE, Gibbons LE, et al. The Delayed Neuropathological Consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury in a Community-Based Sample. Front Neurol. 2021;12:624696. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.624696
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fneur.2021.624696&link_type=DOI) 

44. 44.McCann H, Bahar AY, Burkhardt K, et al. Prevalence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the Sydney Brain Bank. Brain Commun. 2022;4(4):fcac189. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac189
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/braincomms/fcac189&link_type=DOI) 

45. 45.Bieniek KF, Ross OA, Cormier KA, et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy pathology in a neurodegenerative disorders brain bank. Acta Neuropathol. Dec 2015;130(6):877–89. doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1502-4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00401-015-1502-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26518018&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

46. 46.Hof PR, Knabe R, Bovier P, Bouras C. Neuropathological observations in a case of autism presenting with self-injury behavior. Acta Neuropathol. 1991;82(4):321–6. doi:10.1007/bf00308819
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF00308819&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1759563&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991GG48700011&link_type=ISI) 

47. 47.Dams-O’Connor K, Seifert AC, Crary JF, et al. The neuropathology of intimate partner violence. Acta Neuropathol. Dec 2023;146(6):803–815. doi:10.1007/s00401-023-02646-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00401-023-02646-1&link_type=DOI) 

48. 48.Priemer DS, Iacono D, Rhodes CH, Olsen CH, Perl DP. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the brains of military personnel. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;386(23):2169–2177.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/nejmoa2203199&link_type=DOI) 

49. 49.van Zandwijk N, Clarke C, Henderson D, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Dis. Dec 2013;5(6):E254–307. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.11.28
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.11.28&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24416529&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

50. 50.Schaffert J, Didehbani N, LoBue C, et al. Frequency and predictors of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome in a prospective cohort of retired professional athletes. Frontiers in neurology. 2021;12:617526.
    
    

51. 51.Montenigro PH, Baugh CM, Daneshvar DH, et al. Clinical subtypes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy: literature review and proposed research diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome. Alzheimer’s research & therapy. 2014;6:1–17.
    
    

52. 52.Ritter A, Shan G, Montes A, Randall R, Bernick C. Traumatic encephalopathy syndrome: application of new criteria to a cohort exposed to repetitive head impacts. Br J Sports Med. Apr 2023;57(7):389–394. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-105819
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYmpzcG9ydHMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNTcvNy8zODkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wNS8yMDI0LjA3LjA0LjI0MzA5OTU1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

53. 53.Corsellis JA, Bruton CJ, Freeman-Browne D. The aftermath of boxing. Psychol Med. Aug 1973;3(3):270–303. doi:10.1017/s0033291700049588
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0033291700049588&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=4729191&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1973Q562400003&link_type=ISI) 

54. 54.Geddes JF, Vowles GH, Nicoll JA, Révész T. Neuronal cytoskeletal changes are an early consequence of repetitive head injury. Acta Neuropathol. Aug 1999;98(2):171–8. doi:10.1007/s004010051066
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s004010051066&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10442557&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

55. 55.Goldfinger MH, Ling H, Tilley BS, et al. The aftermath of boxing revisited: identifying chronic traumatic encephalopathy pathology in the original Corsellis boxer series. Acta Neuropathol. Dec 2018;136(6):973–974. doi:10.1007/s00401-018-1926-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00401-018-1926-8&link_type=DOI) 

56. 56.Gavett BE, Cantu RC, Shenton M, et al. Clinical appraisal of chronic traumatic encephalopathy: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Opin Neurol. Dec 2011;24(6):525–31. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834cd477
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834cd477&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22045219&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

57. 57.Gavett BE, Stern RA, McKee AC. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy: a potential late effect of sport-related concussive and subconcussive head trauma. Clin Sports Med. Jan 2011;30(1):179–88, xi. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2010.09.007
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.csm.2010.09.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21074091&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285114800016&link_type=ISI) 

58. 58.Mez J, Alosco ML, Daneshvar DH, et al. Validity of the 2014 traumatic encephalopathy syndrome criteria for CTE pathology. Alzheimers Dement. Oct 2021;17(10):1709-1724. doi:10.1002/alz.12338
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/alz.12338&link_type=DOI) 

59. 59.Mez J, Daneshvar DH, Abdolmohammadi B, et al. Duration of American Football Play and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Annals of Neurology. 2020;87(1):116–131. doi:10.1002/ana.25611
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.25611&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31589352&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

60. 60.McKee AC, Stern RA, Nowinski CJ, et al. The spectrum of disease in chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Brain. Jan 2013;136(Pt 1):43–64. doi:10.1093/brain/aws307
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/aws307&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23208308&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314909900006&link_type=ISI) 

61. 61.Dams-O’Connor K, Cantor JB, Brown M, Dijkers MP, Spielman LA, Gordon WA. Screening for traumatic brain injury: findings and public health implications. J Head Trauma Rehabil. Nov-Dec 2014;29(6):479–89. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000099
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/HTR.0000000000000099&link_type=DOI) 

62. 62.Wilson RS, Rosenbaum G, Brown G, Rourke D, Whitman D, Grisell J. An index of premorbid intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1978;46(6):1554–1555. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.46.6.1554
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-006X.46.6.1554&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=730921&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1978GF32800066&link_type=ISI) 

63. 63.Robertson GJ. Wide-Range Achievement Test. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 2010:1–2.
    
    

64. 64.Guilmette TJ, Sweet JJ, Hebben N, et al. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores. Clin Neuropsychol. Apr 2020;34(3):437–453. doi:10.1080/13854046.2020.1722244
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13854046.2020.1722244&link_type=DOI) 

65. 65.Beauchamp MH, Brooks BL, Barrowman N, et al. Empirical Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Case Definition for Neuropsychological Impairment in Children and Adolescents. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. Sep 2015;21(8):596–609. doi:10.1017/s1355617715000636
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S1355617715000636&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26307381&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 

66. 66.Heaton RK, Grant I, Matthews CG, Fastenau PS, Adams KM. Heaton, Grant, and Matthews’ Comprehensive Norms: An Overzealous Attempt. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 1996/06/01 1996;18(3):444–448. doi:10.1080/01688639608409000
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01688639608409000&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Delis DC. California verbal learning test. Adult version Manual Psychological Corporation. 2000;
    
    

68. 68.Wechsler D. WMS-IV: Wechsler memory scale. Pearson; 2009.
    
    

69. 69.Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS-IV). APA PsycTests. 2008.
    
    

70. 70.Bowie CR, Harvey PD. Administration and interpretation of the Trail Making Test. Nature protocols. 2006;1(5):2277–2281.
    
    

71. 71.Benton A, Hamsher dS, Sivan A. Controlled oral word association test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 1994;
    
    

72. 72.Mitrushina M, Boone KB, Razani J, D’Elia LF. Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press; 2005.
    
    

73. 73.Osterrieth PA. Le test de copie d’une figure complexe; contribution a l’etude de la perception et de la memoire. Archives de psychologie. 1944;
    
    

74. 74.Rey A. L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encéphalopathie traumatique.(Les problems.). Archives de psychologie. 1941;
    
    

75. 75.Vasconcelos AG, Malloy-Diniz L, Correa H. Systematic review of psychometric proprieties of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11). Clinical Neuropsychiatry. 2012;9(2)
    
    

76. 76.Brown GL, Goodwin FK, Ballenger JC, Goyer PF, Major LF. Aggression in humans correlates with cerebrospinal fluid amine metabolites. Psychiatry research. 1979;1(2):131–139.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0165-1781(79)90053-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=95232&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1979HV81300003&link_type=ISI) 

77. 77.Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. Jun 1992;30(6):473–83.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1593914&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992HX94800002&link_type=ISI) 

78. 78.Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. Aug 1998;15(8):573–85. doi:10.1089/neu.1998.15.573
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.1998.15.573&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9726257&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000075436500002&link_type=ISI) 

79. 79.Cella D, Lai JS, Nowinski CJ, et al. Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology. Jun 5 2012;78(23):1860–7. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f744
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f744&link_type=DOI) 

80. 80.Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Movement disorders: official journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 2008;23(15):2129–2170.
    
    

81. 81.Kukull WA, Higdon R, Bowen JD, et al. Dementia and Alzheimer Disease Incidence: A Prospective Cohort Study. Archives of Neurology. 2002;59(11):1737–1746. doi:10.1001/archneur.59.11.1737
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.59.11.1737&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12433261&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F05%2F2024.07.04.24309955.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179175800010&link_type=ISI) 

82. 82.Cummings J. Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathology in Patients with Dementia. Los Angeles USA. 2009;