I wouldn't expect them to speculate, but holy shit. Playing w/ the numbers, to hit various overall % levels....(m)

Posted on August 25, 2026 at 11:36:50 AM by LKLIII

If .008% of the untested 643 had it: 25% overall.
If 34.8% of the untested 643 had it: 50% overall.
If 69.1% of the untested 643 had it: 75% overall.

That also doesn't consider a control group. i.e., How prevalent CTE might be in the general population. It's possible (likely?) that even just 25% a prevalence rate is *astoundingly* high.

Back to the board

Thread:

Um . . . this statistic is quite a bit more disturbing than its framing - By Paul August 25, 2026 at 10:10:28 AM
- Yes. The study found that somewhere between 19% and 99% of players had CTE - By ny1995 August 25, 2026 at 10:47:03 AM
  - Agreed, and the paper explicitly mentions the potential for selection bias - By Ypsi August 25, 2026 at 11:05:18 AM
    - I wouldn't expect them to speculate, but holy shit. Playing w/ the numbers, to hit various overall % levels....(m) - By LKLIII August 25, 2026 at 11:36:50 AM
      - Prevalence of CTE in the general population looks to be <1% - By Ypsi August 25, 2026 at 11:56:56 AM
- definitely massive selection bias, but also likely way more than 24% overall* - By DoctorD August 25, 2026 at 10:24:16 AM
- If CTE is bad among football players, imagine boxers.* - By MasterBates August 25, 2026 at 10:17:08 AM
- There are more cases because there’s more testing! - Trump* - By cp August 25, 2026 at 10:16:42 AM
  - Jesus, totally forgot that one.* - By crumbs August 25, 2026 at 10:24:13 AM

The Victors

I wouldn't expect them to speculate, but holy shit. Playing w/ the numbers, to hit various overall % levels....(m)