TBN: UB study of ex-Bills, Sabres finds CTE 'much more rare than we thought'

[Buffaloed]

I haven't seen this article picked up by any major media outlets.

UB study of ex-Bills, Sabres finds CTE 'much more rare than we thought'

Lou Piccone remembers suffering concussions during his days with the Buffalo Bills.
So the 69-year-old retired wide receiver was surprised to learn that a team of University at Buffalo researchers found no signs of dementia-related, structural damage to his brain —despite his years playing professional football in 1970s.
So were the researchers.

“In time, people will begin to realize it’s an important issue, CTE exists, but it’s much more rare than we thought,” Willer (lead investigator) said

Click to read more...

 

[Jim Bob]

It won't get picked up because it breaks a major rule: If it bleeds, it leads...

 

[valet]

I think the CTE thing always got overblown. my reasoning would be that athletes are probably going to show higher rates than the general pop, so there is increased risked, but it's probably like smoking... your risk is increased but it's still pretty small, and genetics play the biggest factor

curious to see more research, as always

 

[NEcoli]

A 21 person sample size is a joke

 

[brian_griffin]

A 21 person sample size is a joke

It was a 50-person population (21 in "sample", 29 in "control"), but yes, small.

If the methodologies were valid, the data, or at least portions of it, might be viable to add in future to a meta-analysis.

Gotta start somewhere...

Edit: to your point, and I know this CTE thing isn't the same as the example below, but assume there is a disease with a 1 in 1,000 prevalence rate in the population, and there is a test which screens for it with 99.5% accuracy.
Q1. How many of a population of 10,000 people will test positive for it (one test, no repeats)?
A1. ~60

 

[stokes84]

I think the CTE thing always got overblown. my reasoning would be that athletes are probably going to show higher rates than the general pop, so there is increased risked, but it's probably like smoking... your risk is increased but it's still pretty small, and genetics play the biggest factor

curious to see more research, as always

Smoking contributes to between 80 - 90% of lung cancer deaths. That’s not some minor uptick - that’s proof of causation. A major Australian cohort study found that 67% of smokers will die of smoking related disease. When it comes to smoking, as with anything, genetics play a role, but it’s not as big as you think. Just because you heard an anecdotal story about some guy that smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years, it doesn’t mean that’s normal.

Similarly, this study showed that 110 out of 111 brains donated by NFL players had CTE at the time of death. There are some obvious issues with the sample (they were donated, meaning they were probably already more likely to have the disease), but that is still such a significant number that it’s likely that the common denominator (they all played in the NFL) was the main factor in causation.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

 

[valet]

Smoking contributes to between 80 - 90% of lung cancer deaths. That’s not some minor uptick - that’s proof of causation. A major Australian cohort study found that 67% of smokers will die of smoking related disease. When it comes to smoking, as with anything, genetics play a role, but it’s not as big as you think. Just because you heard an anecdotal story about some guy that smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years, it doesn’t mean that’s normal.

Similarly, this study showed that 110 out of 111 brains donated by NFL players had CTE at the time of death. There are some obvious issues with the sample (they were donated, meaning they were probably already more likely to have the disease), but that is still such a significant number that it’s likely that the common denominator (they all played in the NFL) was the main factor in causation.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

I never said that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I am also not talking about increased risked of cardiovascular disease or similar issues (these issues actually kill most smokers, not cancer), JUST cancer. Less than 10% of LIFELONG smokers develop lung cancer. and these are lifelong smokers... not those who try it for a few years and decide to quit. Smoking is bad for you. The average age of mortality for lifelong smokers is like 65. All I'm saying is that the lung cancer risk is overblown and used improperly. Smokers should be wayyyyyy more concerned about heart disease than lung cancer.

We don't really have enough evidence to say anything about either of these samples, tbh. A lot could explain why one batch showed CTE and another didn't. until we're working with real sample sizes from random groups of players we'll have no idea what the prevalance of CTE in the NFL is vs the general population.

like I said earlier, head trauma probably does cause CTE, but my hypothesis is that it's similar to your risk odds of getting lung cancer from smoking. obviously one is precipitated by certain conditions, but how likely does it occur given those conditions in reference to the general population?

 

[valet]

It was a 50-person population (21 in "sample", 29 in "control"), but yes, small.

If the methodologies were valid, the data, or at least portions of it, might be viable to add in future to a meta-analysis.

Gotta start somewhere...

Edit: to your point, and I know this CTE thing isn't the same as the example below, but assume there is a disease with a 1 in 1,000 prevalence rate in the population, and there is a test which screens for it with 99.5% accuracy.
Q1. How many of a population of 10,000 people will test positive for it (one test, no repeats)?
A1. ~60

you got a link that explains these statistical probability equations? I need to refresh my memory

 

[Reddawg]

Darryl Talley begs to differ.

 

[brian_griffin]

I'd be shocked if a longitudinal study over a long enough time-frame, or some meta-analysis of multiple studies, failed to show a significant increase in CTE incident rate later in adult life by playing a head-contact support or being a combat infantry soldier, etc., for e.g., >/= X years, or >/= Y # of concussive incidents.

The incident rate of CTE in the general population without those contributory factors / histories has to be less frequent that lightning strikes or shark bites.

 

[brian_griffin]

you got a link that explains these statistical probability equations? I need to refresh my memory

Placeholder. I'll add to it later.