Former NFL player Phillip Adams found to have severe CTE / Discussion on CTE and the future of the NFL

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

One more time. Very very clearly. 30% of what? What is the baseline number that increases 30%?

Just the number, I dont need any qualifiers or other words. 

What Is a Percent Increase?

When comparing how much a value has increased over time, you would first find the difference between the initial and final values by subtracting them to find the exact amount of the increase. For example, during the winter of 2012-13, New York City received 26.1 total inches of snow, while in the winter of 2013-14, it received 54 total inches of snow. Thus, the amount of snow it received increased by 27.9 inches from one winter to the next. However, knowing just the value of the increase doesn't tell us much since the relative scale of the increase isn't known. In other words, is receiving 28 more inches of snow in one year than the previous year a large increase or a small one? Knowing the size of the increase compared to the initial value is more important because it allows you to determine the relative scale of the increase. This is essentially what percent increase is. The percent increase between two values is the difference between a final value and an initial value, expressed as a percentage of the initial value.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/percent-increase-definition-formula.html

[Apparition]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

One more time. Very very clearly. 30% of what? What is the baseline number that increases 30%?

Just the number, I dont need any qualifiers or other words. 

A little under 6% of the population is shown to have signs of CTE. 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620153548.htm

Playing football increases the likelihood of an individual from that random sampling to have those signs by 30% per year played. I don't know how much clearer this can be expressed.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Apparition

[biggie.]

Personally if I had a son I'd much rather him play baseball. Not to say baseball doesn't have its own risks, but it's not as bad as the NFL plus you can make more money.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, biggie. said:

Personally if I had a son I'd much rather him play baseball. Not to say baseball doesn't have its own risks, but it's not as bad as the NFL plus you can make more money.

yeah, no chance i'd let a son (if I had one) play a repeated contact sport with severe CTE risk. Just couldn't fathom risking that.

[Shanedorf]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

the big development in all of this is going to be when we develop the ability to diagnose CTE (and associated risk) on live subjects.

UCLA is making good progress

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-first-to-image-242445

"Now, for the first time, UCLA researchers have used a brain-imaging tool to identify the abnormal tau proteins associated with this type of repetitive injury in five retired National Football League players who are still living. Previously, confirmation of the presence of this protein, which is also associated with Alzheimer's disease, could only be established by an autopsy.

For the study, the UCLA scientists used a brain-imaging tool they had developed previously for assessing neurological changes associated with Alzheimer's disease. They employed a chemical marker they created called FDDNP, which binds to deposits of amyloid beta "plaques" and neurofibrillary tau "tangles" — the hallmarks of Alzheimer's — which they then viewed using a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, providing a "window into the brain." With this method, researchers are able to pinpoint where in the brain these abnormal proteins accumulate."

 

After the players received intravenous injections of FDDNP, researchers performed PET brain scans on them and compared the scans to those of healthy men of comparable age, education, body mass index and family history of dementia.

 

The scientists found that compared to the healthy men, the NFL players had elevated levels of FDDNP in the amygdala and subcortical regions of the brain. These regions control learning, memory, behavior, emotions, and other mental and physical functions. Those players who had experienced a greater number of concussions were found to have higher FDDNP levels.

 

"The FDDNP binding patterns in the players' scans were consistent with the tau deposit patterns that have been observed at autopsy in CTE cases," said study author Dr. Jorge R. Barrio, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA."

 

Its important to note that FDDNP is a biomarker, a surrogate for measuring disease - but not actually measuring the disease state itself.  And while that's a huge leap in our understanding, much more needs to be done before we can start making CTE diagnoses based on this marker alone.

 

With regards to NFL going forward - I can see the NFLPA pushing for a baseline test when you enter the league and then ongoing testing going forward to see if they can pick things up. Then the NFL players will have to decide what to do with that info and their careers.

 

[Apparition]

I wonder how much being able to diagnose CTE on the fly will move the needle, and how quickly.

Knowing the health effects of smoking has slowly but surely decreased the number of smokers, but smoking is a drain on your bank account.

Is a guy getting half a million per game check going to give that up if he's diagnosed with CTE? I would bet for most of them, the answer is no. But the roster bubble players? The special teamers and practice squad guys making 1/20 of that? I could definitely see the chilling effect coming from the bottom up in that scenario.

[Matts4313]

22 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

24 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

One more time. Very very clearly. 30% of what? What is the baseline number that increases 30%?

Just the number, I dont need any qualifiers or other words. 

What Is a Percent Increase?

When comparing how much a value has increased over time, you would first find the difference between the initial and final values by subtracting them to find the exact amount of the increase. For example, during the winter of 2012-13, New York City received 26.1 total inches of snow, while in the winter of 2013-14, it received 54 total inches of snow. Thus, the amount of snow it received increased by 27.9 inches from one winter to the next. However, knowing just the value of the increase doesn't tell us much since the relative scale of the increase isn't known. In other words, is receiving 28 more inches of snow in one year than the previous year a large increase or a small one? Knowing the size of the increase compared to the initial value is more important because it allows you to determine the relative scale of the increase. This is essentially what percent increase is. The percent increase between two values is the difference between a final value and an initial value, expressed as a percentage of the initial value.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/percent-increase-definition-formula.html

Lets try it again. I bolded the important stuff.

[incognito_man]

12 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

UCLA is making good progress

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-first-to-image-242445

"Now, for the first time, UCLA researchers have used a brain-imaging tool to identify the abnormal tau proteins associated with this type of repetitive injury in five retired National Football League players who are still living. Previously, confirmation of the presence of this protein, which is also associated with Alzheimer's disease, could only be established by an autopsy.

For the study, the UCLA scientists used a brain-imaging tool they had developed previously for assessing neurological changes associated with Alzheimer's disease. They employed a chemical marker they created called FDDNP, which binds to deposits of amyloid beta "plaques" and neurofibrillary tau "tangles" — the hallmarks of Alzheimer's — which they then viewed using a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, providing a "window into the brain." With this method, researchers are able to pinpoint where in the brain these abnormal proteins accumulate."

 

After the players received intravenous injections of FDDNP, researchers performed PET brain scans on them and compared the scans to those of healthy men of comparable age, education, body mass index and family history of dementia.

 

The scientists found that compared to the healthy men, the NFL players had elevated levels of FDDNP in the amygdala and subcortical regions of the brain. These regions control learning, memory, behavior, emotions, and other mental and physical functions. Those players who had experienced a greater number of concussions were found to have higher FDDNP levels.

 

"The FDDNP binding patterns in the players' scans were consistent with the tau deposit patterns that have been observed at autopsy in CTE cases," said study author Dr. Jorge R. Barrio, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA."

 

Its important to note that FDDNP is a biomarker, a surrogate for measuring disease - but not actually measuring the disease state itself.  And while that's a huge leap in our understanding, much more needs to be done before we can start making CTE diagnoses based on this marker alone.

 

With regards to NFL going forward - I can see the NFLPA pushing for a baseline test when you enter the league and then ongoing testing going forward to see if they can pick things up. Then the NFL players will have to decide what to do with that info and their careers.

 

Unfortunately they were shut down

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-brain-scan-warning-taumark-20150410-story.html

[Matts4313]

23 minutes ago, Apparition said:

A little under 6% of the population is shown to have signs of CTE. 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620153548.htm

Playing football increases the likelihood of an individual from that random sampling to have those signs by 30% per year played. I don't know how much clearer this can be expressed.

Isnt it funny that his response is basically completely different than yours? Thats the reason why just throwing "30%, 30%, 30%" over and over is just as dumb as "99%! 99% 99%".

 

Because no one know what the hell they are talking about. Everyone in this thread is talking directly out of their anus, because even the doctors have admitted they have no effing clue. 

[Matts4313]

Although I do admit I can enjoy when people put their hands over their ears and just scream loudly unfounded, uninformed opinions. Its really funny to me. 

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Lets try it again. I bolded the important stuff.

I cannot comprehend what you do not understand lol

My 6 yr old is learning ratios right now. What's the actual problem here that you don't get? Was the paragraph too much?

a "30% increase" means that the subsequent measurement is 1.3x greater than the previous measurement.

 

[BigTrav]

Matts asks what the 30% increase was on…

incog answers that it is from the previous measurement 

 

maybe Matts wishes to know what this previous measurement was?

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I cannot comprehend what you do not understand lol

My 6 yr old is learning ratios right now. What's the actual problem here that you don't get? Was the paragraph too much?

a "30% increase" means that the subsequent measurement is 1.3x greater than the previous measurement.

 

1.3 x X

Solve for X. X is a number. Whats that number?

 

 

All you have to say is there is no quantifiable starting point and you could end this useless back and forth. We both know that I am simply hammering this point because.... There is no starting quantifiable point. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, BigTrav said:

Matts asks what the 30% increase was on…

incog answers that it is from the previous measurement 

 

maybe Matts wishes to know what this previous measurement was?

Well here's the study to read for those curious about the calculation:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25611

In models adjusted for age at death, there was a dose–response relationship between longer duration played and having CTE; each additional year of play corresponded to 30% higher odds of having CTE at death (Bonferroni corrected p = 3.8 × 10⁻⁹; Table 3). Among participants with CTE, there was a dose–response relationship between longer duration played and having severe CTE; each additional year of play corresponded to 14% higher odds of having severe CTE at death (Bonferroni corrected p = 3.1 × 10⁻⁴). Among participants with CTE, there was a dose–response relationship between longer duration played and worse NFT burden across 11 brain regions; each additional year of play corresponded to a 0.05 standard deviation increase in NFT burden (Bonferroni corrected p = 6.0 × 10⁻⁶).

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

1.3 x X

Solve for X. X is a number. Whats that number?

 

 

All you have to say is there is no quantifiable starting point and you could end this useless back and forth. We both know that I am simply hammering this point because.... There is no starting quantifiable point. 

you really do not understand science/math dude lol

I don't know how to communicate with someone about this without a requisite background in elementary statistics