TES Criteria Show Low Accuracy for CTE-NC Diagnosis

Navigating the Clinical Landscape of Traumatic Encephalopathy

The potential for long-term neurological consequences following repetitive head impacts, particularly in contact sports, has become a significant concern for clinicians and the public alike [1, 2, 3]. While traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a well-defined clinical entity [4], the challenge lies in diagnosing its chronic sequelae, such as the neurodegenerative changes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). A primary obstacle is that CTE can only be definitively confirmed through postmortem neuropathological examination [5, 6]. This has created an urgent need for reliable antemortem diagnostic tools. A recent study now provides a critical evaluation of the current clinical criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES), the proposed clinical counterpart to CTE, assessing their accuracy in predicting underlying pathology [7].

Evaluating Diagnostic Precision for CTE-NC

A central difficulty in managing patients with suspected CTE is the current inability to confirm the diagnosis in living individuals. The definitive diagnosis rests on identifying chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC), a process requiring postmortem histological examination of brain tissue. To address this clinical gap, consensus diagnostic criteria were developed for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES), intended to serve as the clinical correlate for CTE-NC. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these TES criteria has not been validated, leading to considerable uncertainty for clinicians. A primary apprehension is the questionable specificity of the proposed clinical features, which may overlap with other neurodegenerative or psychiatric conditions. A new study directly confronts this issue by comparing antemortem TES diagnoses against postmortem neuropathological findings to determine the real-world predictive power of the criteria.

Study Design and Cohort Characteristics

To assess the performance of the traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) criteria, investigators conducted a rigorous retrospective analysis using data from a neurodegenerative brain bank. The study began with a review of antemortem clinical records for 1,038 cases to identify individuals who met the clinical criteria for TES during their lifetime. Subsequently, a systematic neuropathological evaluation for chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC) was performed on all 1,038 brains. This two-step design is essential for determining diagnostic accuracy, as it allows for a direct comparison of a clinical diagnosis made during life against the definitive postmortem pathological 'ground truth' within a large cohort.

Clinical Criteria vs. Neuropathological Findings

The study's findings revealed a significant discrepancy between the clinical diagnosis of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) and the presence of its underlying pathology. Of the 1,038 cases analyzed, 25 individuals (2.4%) met the clinical criteria for a TES diagnosis based on their antemortem records. Upon neuropathological examination, however, only six of these 25 individuals were found to have confirmed chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC). This yields a positive predictive value of just 24.0% (95% confidence interval 9.4% to 45.1%), indicating that a clinical diagnosis of TES is a poor predictor of actual CTE-NC pathology. Compounding this, the study found that among the 1,013 cases that did not meet clinical criteria for TES, seven cases (0.69%) were still found to have CTE-NC at autopsy. This suggests the current criteria lack both sufficient positive predictive power and sensitivity to be reliable for clinical use.

Factors Influencing Diagnostic Accuracy

In seeking to understand the poor performance of the clinical criteria, the researchers analyzed which factors were most strongly associated with a correct diagnosis. The analysis demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) for chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC) was driven almost entirely by a patient's reported history of exposure to repetitive head impacts, not by the specific clinical features outlined in the TES criteria. To confirm this, the investigators compared the prevalence of TES symptoms in cases with confirmed CTE-NC against a matched control group. The results were stark: there was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of either core or supportive clinical features of TES between the cases with CTE-NC and the matched sample. This finding suggests that the symptom checklist currently used to define TES is not specific to the underlying pathology and fails to reliably distinguish individuals with CTE-NC from those with other conditions.

Clinical Implications and Patient Well-being

For practicing physicians evaluating patients with a history of head trauma, these findings are profoundly important. The study's key result, a positive predictive value of only 24.0% for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) criteria predicting chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathologic change (CTE-NC), highlights the current limitations of antemortem diagnosis. While the discovery of CTE-NC in former athletes has rightly increased awareness, this study shows that the tools developed to identify it in the clinic are not yet reliable. A clinical diagnosis of TES, based on current criteria, is highly likely to be incorrect. This has implications beyond diagnostic precision, extending directly to patient welfare. The authors note that the poor performance of TES criteria raises substantial concern for its potential negative psychological impact on current and former contact sport athletes. A premature or inaccurate diagnosis of a progressive neurodegenerative disease can cause significant anxiety and distress. Clinicians must therefore exercise considerable caution, clearly communicating the profound uncertainty of a TES diagnosis and managing patient expectations about the current state of the science.

References

1. Iverson GL, Castellani RJ, Cassidy JD, et al. Examining later-in-life health risks associated with sport-related concussion and repetitive head impacts: a systematic review of case-control and cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106890

2. Manley GT, Gardner AJ, Schneider K, et al. A systematic review of potential long-term effects of sport-related concussion. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097791

3. Gallo V, Motley K, Kemp S, et al. Concussion and long-term cognitive impairment among professional or elite sport-persons: a systematic review. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2020. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-321170

4. Nguyen R, Fiest KM, McChesney J, et al. The International Incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques. 2016. doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.290

5. Palmqvist S, Whitson HE, Allen LA, et al. Alzheimer's Association Clinical Practice Guideline on the use of blood‐based biomarkers in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease within specialized care settings. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.70535

6. Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Giacino JT, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurology. 2009. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-9-35

7. Arena JD, Stewart W, Schneider ALC, et al. Performance of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome criteria in identifying individuals with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.. Nature medicine. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04392-9