Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Oct 23;15(10):e0239507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239507

Does acute soccer heading cause an increase in plasma S100B? A randomized controlled trial

Megan E Huibregtse 1,#, Madeleine K Nowak 1,#, Joseph E Kim 1, Rachel M Kalbfell 1, Alekhya Koppineni 1, Keisuke Ejima 2, Keisuke Kawata 1,3,*
Editor: Leonardo A Peyré-Tartaruga4
PMCID: PMC7584162  PMID: 33096545

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the effect of subconcussive head impacts on acute changes in plasma S100B. In this randomized controlled trial, 79 healthy adult soccer players were randomly assigned to either the heading (n = 41) or kicking-control groups (n = 38). The heading group executed 10 headers with soccer balls projected at a speed of 25 mph, whereas the kicking-control group performed 10 kicks. Plasma samples were obtained at pre-, 0h post-, 2h post- and 24h post-intervention and measured for S100B. The primary hypothesis was that there would be a significant group difference (group-by-time interaction) in plasma S100B at 2h post-intervention. Secondary hypotheses included (1) no significant group differences in plasma S100B concentrations at 0h post- and 24h post-intervention; (2) a significant within-group increase in S100B concentrations in the heading group at 2h post-intervention compared to pre-intervention; and (3) no significant within-group changes in plasma S100B in the kicking-control group. Data from 68 subjects were available for analysis (heading n = 37, kicking n = 31). There were no differences in S100B concentrations between heading and kicking groups over time, as evidenced by nonsignificant group-by-time interaction at 2h post-intervention (B = 2.20, 95%CI [-22.22, 26.63], p = 0.86) and at all the other time points (0h post: B = -11.05, 95%CI [-35.37, 13.28], p = 0.38; 24h post: B = 16.11, 95%CI [-8.29, 40.51], p = 0.20). Part of the secondary outcome, the heading group showed elevation in plasma S100B concentrations at 24h post-intervention compared to pre-heading baseline (B = 19.57, 95%CI [3.13, 36.02], p = 0.02), whereas all other within-group comparisons in both remained nonsignificant. The data suggest that 10 bouts of acute controlled soccer headings do not elevate S100B concentrations up to 24-hour post-heading. Further dose-response studies with longer follow-up time points may help determine thresholds of acute soccer heading exposure that are related to astrocyte activation. The protocol was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03488381; retrospectively registered.).

Introduction

Exposure to subconcussive head impacts, or impacts to the cranium that do not result in clinical signs and symptoms of concussions [1, 2], has the potential to lead to long-term neurological consequences, including neurocognitive impairments [3] and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) [4, 5]. In contact sports such as American football, soccer, ice hockey, and rugby, athletes are prone to experiencing hundreds to thousands of these subconcussive head impacts each season [1, 6, 7]. Particularly, in soccer, frequent subconcussive head impacts occur both intentionally and unintentionally through contact with other players, the ground, and the ball [8]. For example, retrospective questionnaires estimate that a collegiate soccer player performs up to 500 headers during a single season and over 3,000 during the course of a career [9, 10]. Recently, Saunders et al. prospectively collected head impact kinematic data and video-verified all impacts in 28 men’s and women’s Division III collegiate soccer players across an entire season, finding that approximately 614 headers (ball-to-head contact) occurred per 1000 athlete-exposures in practices and games which comprised the majority of all types of head impacts that occurred during play [11]. It is critical to note that the authors believe the generalizability of this investigation’s results are limited by the small sample size and strict criteria used by the research team to verify each impact; thus the reported incidence rate may certainly be an underestimation of header frequency in collegiate soccer players [11]. Furthermore, there is a great need to understand acute and chronic consequences of subconcussive head impact exposure since over 3 million high school and college athletes engage in contact sports in the United States each year [12].

Blood biomarkers have been explored as potential objective diagnostic tools to gauge the severity of brain injury, with some biomarkers are currently incorporated in clinical practice for the detection of brain injury [1315]. In particular, S100B, a calcium-binding protein enriched in astrocytes, has emerged as blood biomarker for traumatic brain injury (TBI) [1618]. For instance, elevated S100B is a strong predictor of mortality after sustaining TBI [19] and a recent meta-analysis concluded that acute S100B concentrations (<3h post-injury) are useful in predicting intracranial bleeding in children after concussion with sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 37.5%, respectively [20]. Previous studies have detected elevations in S100B after acute exposure to subconcussive head impacts during practices and games in soccer and American football players [2124]. However, an opposing line of research indicates that S100B in blood can be elevated not only from the mechanical forces to the brain, but also from exercise and bodily hits [23, 2527]. For instance, Straume-Næsheim et al. recruited 535 professional soccer players and identified similar levels of S100B elevation after high-intensity exercise, heading drills, and collision during soccer match [28]. In an effort to replicate the data derived from field studies, Dorminy et al. conducted a pilot laboratory study and reported that 5 acute bouts of soccer headings resulted in non-significant elevations in plasma S100B concentrations [29]. However, the former study failed to control for the frequency and magnitude of head impacts and was unable to differentiate the effects of head impacts from exercise, whereas the latter study included 11 total soccer players without a control group. As result, the isolated effect of acute subconcussive head impacts on circulating S100B concentrations over an acute time period has never been rigorously investigated.

Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to study the time-course response of S100B after acute subconcussive head impacts. Our soccer heading paradigm [30] was used to induce 10 controlled subconcussive head impacts while eliminating extraneous influences that are inherent in field studies, such as bodily hits, fatigue, strenuous exercise, perspiration, and hydration. The heading quantity of 10 was selected to minimize risk to participants while maximizing ecological validity based on head impact frequency reported in field studies of soccer and American football players [3134]. The primary outcome was to determine the between-group differences (group-by-time interaction) in change in plasma S100B concentrations at 2h post-intervention after 10 soccer headings. We hypothesized that the heading group will show significantly greater changes in S100B concentrations between pre- and 2h-post intervention compared to the kicking-control group. This primary time point of 2h-post intervention was determined based on the half-life of S100B and previous reports on S100B’s diagnostic utility for concussion [20, 22, 35]. We also tested three secondary hypotheses: (1) there would be no significant between-group differences in change in S100B concentrations at 0h post- and 24h post-intervention (2) there would be a significant within-group increase in plasma S100B in the heading group at 2h post-intervention, while within-group changes in plasma S100B in the heading group at 0h post- and 24h-post would be nonsignificant; and (3) there would be no significant within-group changes in plasma S100B concentrations in the kicking-control group at any time point.

Methods

Trial design and randomization

This single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial examined the changes in plasma S100B in response to an acute bout of ten soccer headers. Participants were randomly assigned to either the soccer heading or kicking-control group using a simple, dice-based randomization method. Subjects were unblinded to their assigned group, but biomarker experimenters were blinded from the group assignment information. Plasma samples were collected at four time points: pre-, 0h post-, 2h post-, and 24h post-intervention. Between the pre and 0h post-intervention time points, participants in the heading group performed ten soccer headers (see Soccer heading intervention section below), and participants in the kicking-control group kicked the soccer ball. Between the 0h post- and 2h post-intervention time points, participants remained in the laboratory and were instructed to refrain from strenuous physical or cognitive activities. Participants returned to the laboratory approximately 24h after the intervention for the final time point. The Indiana University Institutional Review Board (IU IRB) approved the study, and study procedures were performed in accordance with regulations of the IU IRB (protocol registered under ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03488381). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

The trial protocol was registered 7 months after the commencement of the study. This late registration was due to the authors’ misunderstanding of the use of the soccer heading protocol being categorized as an interventional trial until one of federal agencies suggested otherwise. The trial registration occurred on April 5, 2018, and the first participant was enrolled on August 31, 2017. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study prior to the registration, which accounts for 55% of the final sample size. No interval analysis was conducted prior to the registration. The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered.

Participants

From August 2017 until May 2019, using a convenient sampling strategy, we recruited potential participants who were enrolled at Indiana University—Bloomington, met the following inclusion criteria, and were free of exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria included being between 18 and 26 years old and having at least five years of soccer heading experience, which ensures their proficiency to perform soccer headings [35, 36]. Exclusion criteria included a history of head injury within 12 months prior to data collection, a history of vestibular, ocular, or visual dysfunction, a history of neurological disorders, or a clinical diagnosis of a learning disability. Our sample size calculation, based on results from previous studies [21, 37] and a minimal clinical important difference of 25 pg/mL, suggested a total of 56 participants (28 participants per intervention) to yield a statistical power of at least 0.80 with a level of significance of = 0.05. We estimated a worst-case dropout rate of 25%. As a result, a total of 79 participants were recruited in the study and were randomly assigned into the heading (n = 41) and kicking-control (n = 38) groups. Participants were instructed to refrain from any activity that involved head impacts during the study period. At timepoints pre- and 24h post-intervention, participants verified that they had not participated in any head impact activities 24 hours prior to the 24h post-intervention timepoint.

Soccer heading intervention

A standardized soccer heading intervention was used to induce ten subconcussive head impacts in the form of soccer heading [30, 38]. Bevilacqua et al. [38] contains the video version of the soccer heading intervention. A triaxial accelerometer (SIM-G, Triax Technologies, Inc., Norwalk, CT) was held in place at the occipital protuberance with a custom headband to quantify the linear and rotational acceleration of each head impact. A JUGS soccer machine (JPS Sports, Tualatin, OR) projected a size 5 soccer ball, reaching the participant at a speed of about 25 mph (11.2 m/s). The ball speed is on the slower-scale end of rising balls kicked by adult soccer players [39]. An average linear head acceleration from a header ranges between 26 and 32 g [2], while regular corner or goal kicks (~50mph) yield accelerations above 50 g [40]. This study agreed with our previous studies [2, 41] in that 10 headings did not increase concussion-related symptoms in study participants, ensuring that our intervention is in fact “subconcussive.” All participants stood approximately 40 ft (12.2 m) in front of the JUGS machine. Participants in the heading group were instructed to head the soccer ball with their forehead and aim the ball towards a researcher standing approximately 16 ft (4.9 m) in front of the participant. For the heading group, the JUGS machine was set at an angle of 40 degrees from the horizontal by elevating it four inches off the ground. Participants in the kicking-control group were given the same set of instructions, except to kick the ball towards the researcher instead of heading. Participants performed 10 headers or kicks with one-minute intervals between each header or kick. Ten headers was chosen based on previous studies that show soccer players head the ball on average 6–12 times per game [42]. Furthermore, a collegiate American football players incurs on average of 7 to 10 hits per practice, with a mean peak linear acceleration per impact ranging from 28 to 32 g [21, 43]. Therefore, our subconcussive intervention that consists of 10 headers with 33 g per header is translatable beyond soccer.

Plasma sampling and S100B measurement

At each time point, four milliliters of venous blood were collected into EDTA vacutainer tubes (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA). Plasma was separated by centrifugation (1500 x g, 15 min, 4°C) and stored at -80°C until analysis. Plasma S100B concentrations were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (Human S100B ELISA, EMD Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA). The lower detection limit of the assay is 2.7 pg/mL using a 50 μL plasma sample size, and the assay covers a concentration range of up to 2000 pg/mL, with an inter-assay variation of 1.9–4.4% and an intra-assay variation of 2.9–4.8%. Samples were loaded in duplicate into the ELISA plates according to manufacturer instructions. Fluorescence was measured by a microplate reader (BioTek EL800, Winooski, VT) and converted into pg/mL as per the standard curve concentrations. To eliminate the inter-assay effect on within-subject data, all samples from each participant were assayed on the same plate. The biomarker experimenters were blinded from the group assignment information.

Past literature has estimated that S100B is cleared rapidly following mTBI, with the half-life of circulating S100B to be approximately 60 to 120 minutes [17, 22, 4446]. For example, in a study examining mTBI patients, Townend et al. estimated the elimination half-life of S100B from circulation after mTBI to be 97 minutes [44]. This estimated half-life is well within the duration of our acute timepoints used in this study (0h post-, 2h post-, and 24h post-intervention).

Primary and secondary outcomes

The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in plasma S100B at 2h post-intervention. The secondary outcomes were: (1) between-group differences in change in S100B concentration at 0h post- and 24h post-intervention (group-by-time interaction); (2) within-group changes (time effects) in plasma S100B concentrations in the heading group; and (3) within-group changes (time effects) in plasma S100B concentration in the kicking-control group.

Statistical analysis

Demographic differences between the heading and kicking-control groups were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests for not normally distributed continuous variables (age, BMI, number of previous concussions, years of soccer heading experience) or Fisher’s exact test for a categorical variable (sex). The effect of soccer heading on acute plasma S100B concentrations was assessed using a mixed effects regression model (MRM). A MRM was constructed to regress time, intervention, and time by intervention interaction on the plasma S100B concentrations. The model was adjusted for BMI. Participants were treated as a random effect to account for individual S100B differences at the baseline. Cook’s distance was calculated to examine unusual influence of individual data points on the fit of the model. Two data points were identified as outliers, such that plasma S100B concentrations were found to be greater than 700 pg/mL, well above high levels observed in previous S100B studies of subconcussive head impacts [22, 33, 34, 47, 48] and TBI [4951], and the model was refit without these two points. All Mann-Whitney U tests were two-tailed, and the significance level was set a priori to 0.05. Any measurements below the detection limit of the assay were treated as missing data points. The analysis approach was intention-to-treat (ITT). Missing data points were treated as Missing Completely At Random (MCAR), and thus missing values were not imputed. All analyses were conducted using R (version 3.4.1) with packages “lmer” and “lmerTest.”

Results

Demographics and head impact kinematics

Eighty-four individuals were evaluated for eligibility. Seventy-nine participants, who met inclusion criteria and were free of exclusion criteria, proceeded to randomization. There were 11 voluntary withdrawals (heading n = 4, 22.5 (1.0) years old, 0% male; kicking-control n = 7, 20.9 (1.1) years old, 57% male) prior to the pre-intervention time points. Data from 68 participants (n = 37 heading, n = 31 kicking-control) were available for analysis (Fig 1). Demographics and head impact kinematics are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences in any of the demographic variables between groups.

Fig 1. Study flow chart of eligibility assessment, randomization, data collection, and analysis.

Fig 1

Table 1. Demographics and impact kinematics by group.

Variables Heading Group Kicking-control group P-value
Demographics
 n 37 31 -
 Sex 19M 18F 14M 17F 0.635
 Age, y 21 (19–22) 21 (20–22) 0.294
 BMI, kg/m2 23.4 (21.5–25.2) 23.4 (22.5–25.8) 0.389
 No. of previous concussion 0 (0–1) 0 (0–0) 0.215
 Soccer heading experience, y 9 (6–11) 9 (6–12.8) 0.599
Head impact kinematics, mean ± SD
 PLA, g 33.2 ± 6.8 - a -
 PRA, krad/s2 3.6 ± 1.4 - a -

Note: All data are presented as median (interquartile range), unless otherwise specified. BMI, body mass index. PLA, peak linear acceleration. PRA, peak rotational acceleration. krad, kiloradian.

aSoccer kicking did not cause a detectable level of head acceleration.

Primary outcome: Between-group difference in change in S100B at 2h post-intervention

Ten acute soccer headings did not result in group difference in change in S100B concentrations at 2h post intervention, as evidence by non-significant group-by-time interaction (B = 2.20, 95%CI [-22.22, 26.63], p = 0.86; Fig 2).

Fig 2. Plasma S100B concentrations in the heading and kicking-control groups at each study time point (pre-, 0h post-, 2h post-, and 24h post-intervention).

Fig 2

Data are presented as means with the error bars representing the 95% confidence intervals. There was a significant within-group increase in plasma S100B in the heading group at 24h post-intervention relative to pre-intervention (p = 0.02). There were no other significant time, group, or group-by-time effects of soccer heading on plasma S100B concentrations.

Secondary outcome: Between-group differences in change in S100B at 0h and 24h post-intervention and within-group change over time

There was no significant group-by-time interaction in change in S100B concentrations at 0h or 24h post-intervention (0h post: B = -11.05, 95%CI [-35.37, 13.28], p = 0.38; 24h post: B = 16.11, 95%CI [-8.29, 40.51], p = 0.20; Fig 2). There was a significant within-group elevation in plasma S100B at 24h post-intervention in the heading group (B = 19.57, 95%CI [3.13, 36.02], p = 0.02). There were no other significant time effects for both groups (see Table 2).

Table 2. Within-group time effects.

Estimate (B) 95%CI P-value
Heading group
0h post-intervention -0.27 [-17.06, 16.52] 0.98
2h post-intervention 0.99 [-15.94, 17.92] 0.91
24h post-intervention 19.57 [3.13, 36.02] 0.02*
Kicking-control group
0h post-intervention 10.78 [-6.83, 28.39] 0.23
2h post-intervention -1.22 [-18.82, 16.38] 0.89
24h post-intervention 3.47 [-14.56, 21.49] 0.71

Note: Within group changes are in reference to S100B concentrations at pre-intervention baseline.

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to examine an acute time-course expression of plasma S100B after subconcussive head impacts across three post-head-impact time points (0h, 2h, and 24h). Although the implication of the data is limited to the acute post-impact phase, we provide evidence to suggest that 10 controlled soccer headers are not sufficient to provoke astrocyte activation, as reflected by a lack of significant change in S100B concentration in the heading group relative to the kicking-control group.

Although we failed to distinguish S100B elevation in soccer headings from a kicking control, S100B has been demonstrated to significantly correlate with severity, recovery outcomes (e.g., mortality, disability), and cerebrovascular and neuronal cellular damage from TBI and subconcussive head impacts [19, 5254]. In a cohort of 92 patients with TBI admitted within 12 hours of injury, Pelinka et al. detected a relationship between S100B and mortality rates, as evidenced by significantly higher S100B concentrations in non-survivors compared to survivors at all six time points, ranging from admittance to 108h post-injury [19]. The authors also found a significant positive relationship between S100B concentrations and the severity of intracranial bleeding through CT scans [19, 55]. These findings were consistent with Ingebrigtsen et al., who detected a significant association between elevated S100B concentrations and abnormal neuroradiological findings, such as cranial fractures and brain contusions (CT and MRI) [56]. The same group examined S100B concentrations in 278 patients with TBI and found that higher S100B concentrations were associated with worse injury severity as determined by lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores. Bazarian et al. found that white matter alterations were associated with both concentrations of S100B autoantibodies and head impact kinematic variables in a cohort of collegiate football players over the course of one season [52]. Despite the increasing literature, thresholds identifying what type and magnitude of head impacts elicit concussion and subconcussion remain unclear. Concussion symptom provocation can be influenced by additional factors such as age, sex, location of impact, and recovery periods [1]. The lack of a definite threshold underscores the need for objective measures, such as blood biomarkers, to capture the consequences of subconcussive head impacts.

Despite the clinical utility of S100B as a biomarker of brain injury, it has long been in debate that S100B can also be translocated to the bloodstream from several extracranial cellular sources, such as Schwann cells, ganglion cells, adipocytes, and skeletal myofibers [57, 58]. Aside from neurotrauma, additional variables, such as exercise [2527, 59], race [60], mood disorder diagnosis [61], and alcohol consumption [62], have been shown to have an influence on plasma S100B concentrations. Physical exertion has been shown to result in acute increases in serum S100B concentrations, pointing to the difficulty of accurate interpretation when athletes incur head trauma and exhibit elevations in serum S100B [2527, 59]. Dietrich et al. recruited 16 elite swimmers and observed a significant elevation in serum S100B concentrations from pre- (70.7±17.7 pg/mL) to post-competition (108.1±19.5 pg/mL) [25]. Furthermore, acute elevations in S100B concentrations have been detected across a wide range of running intensities and durations [26, 27]. However, Kiechle et al. were able to distinguish the proportional increase in serum S100B concentration after sport-related concussions from sport-related non-contact exertion levels in young adult athletes (AUC 0.904), suggesting that TBI-induced elevations of S100B are far beyond those of physical exercise effects.

Our motivation to conduct the current randomized controlled trial was to validate the growing number of studies supporting the use of circulating S100B concentrations to examine the effects of subconcussive head impacts [2123, 29, 33, 34, 47, 63]. Acute increases in serum S100B concentration have been detected from pre- to post-game in both male and female soccer players, and the magnitude of S100B increase has been correlated with the number of headers that each player performed in the game [33, 34]. For example, studies by Kawata et al., Zonner et al., and Marchi et al. reported that serum S100B concentrations increase after high school and collegiate American football games and practices by nearly 300% compared to pre-game/practice baseline, with the degree of S100B elevation correlating to the number and magnitude of head impact sustained during game/practice [21, 22, 24]. However, despite our previous effort to control for muscle damage through creatine-kinase levels and exercise effects through excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) [22], “true” head impact effects on circulating S100B concentrations can only be tested in a controlled environment, such as our soccer heading intervention. Clinical studies have reported that the magnitude of soccer headings by collegiate female soccer players can reach as high as 71.2 g (90th percentile head impact of any type by PLA) [64], and male soccer players perform as many as 19 headers per game [34]. Using the Head Impact Telemetry System, Duma et al. identified that the average PLA of head impacts during American football practices and games is 32 g, with nearly 90% of all head impacts falling below 60 g [43]. Collegiate American football players incur frequent head impacts during practices and games in an intensity-dependent manner: shell-only practice, avg. 12.7 impacts/player; full gear practice, avg. 16.8 impacts/player; game, avg. 25 impacts/player, with an similar head impact magnitude of 28 g across any type of practice and game [32, 65]. Therefore, our soccer heading model, which was comprised of 10 soccer headers with an average PLA of 33.2 g, is representative of a bout of subconcussive head impacts sustained in contact sports while also minimizing risk to participants and maximizing feasibility and ecological validity.

In addition to the present study, previous laboratory studies, using soccer heading models in an attempt to isolate subconcussive head impacts from confounding variables such as exercise, have been unable to replicate the findings of clinical studies. Namely, Dorminy et al. did not detect significant changes in serum S100B concentrations in 11 college-aged soccer players following a bout of 5 headers, despite investigating three different ball speeds (30, 40, and 50 mph) [29]. These results corroborated the findings of Stålnacke et al., who found that S100B concentrations did not differ from baseline at 0.5h, 2h, or 4h post-heading [47]. Furthermore, the serum S100B concentrations in the heading group did not differ from a non-heading control group at all time points. In agreement with the aforementioned studies, the current study did not detect significant between-group differences in changes in S100B concentrations following an acute bout of soccer heading, despite increasing the sample size, including a kicking-control group, and extending the study time frame to 24h post-intervention. The within-group elevation in plasma S100B in the heading group at 24h post-intervention merits some discussion, despite the lack of between-group difference at the same timepoint. The 24h post-intervention timepoint lies outside the half-life of S100B in the blood, suggesting that either the effect of 10 soccer headers may take considerably longer than anticipated to result in a peripheral increase in S100B or there were behaviors or factors that we did not account for between the 2h and 24h post-intervention timepoints driving this increase withing the heading group. The prolonged time for expression and translocation to the bloodstream could suggest that the mechanism by which S100B from astrocyte activation increases in the periphery is predominantly through clearance by the glymphatic system rather than blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption [17]. The presumable low level of neural damage from a short bout of soccer heading may not be sufficient to disrupt the BBB as seen with more severe head injuries [66, 67]. The glymphatic system, which is more active during sleep [68], could be the predominant avenue by which S100B is cleared from the interstitial space through paravenous space after 10 subconcussive head impacts in the form of controlled soccer headers, explaining why we observed an increase when participants returned the next day for the 24h post-intervention blood sample collection. Furthermore, astrocyte activation has been previously noted to continue for up to 20 hours post trauma [69]. Therefore, the timeline of observed S100B elevation could surpass the half-life. The other possible explanation, albeit less likely, for the within-group increase in plasma S100B at 24h post-intervention in the heading group may be that before returning for the last timepoint, some or many participants within the heading group partook in activities that have been shown to result in elevations in peripheral S100B, such as swimming, running, or weight training [23, 25, 26]. We feel that this is unlikely due to the fact that participants were randomized to one of the two conditions, reducing the likelihood of this potential explanation for a late increase in plasma S100B in just the heading group. Again, it is important to note that we did not detect a between-group difference in change in plasma S100B at this timepoint, thus we can cannot conclude that soccer heading resulted in a meaningful increase in plasma S100B. Future research should explore reasons for this delayed elevation in S100B.

Clinical implication

The use of blood biomarkers in the diagnosis of brain injury is emerging due in part to its objectivity. The results of the present study contribute to the body of head injury literature that should be considered when monitoring athletes and making clinical decisions. When investigating possible neural damage in response to subconcussive head impacts, the use of S100B should not be relied upon alone. Especially in low head impact exposure such as ~10 headings, S100B may not be useful to surrogate neurologic stress. Nonetheless, it is important that practitioners pair S100B with additional objective methods, such as neuroimaging or other blood biomarkers (e.g., neurofilament light [NF-L], tau, glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP]) [70], in addition to subjective symptom reporting from the patient. Furthermore, emerging data on salivary-based S100B, which has shown to adequately differentiate concussion patients from controls (AUC = 0.74) [71], may have a direct implication to clinical practice in near future. Nonetheless, multimodal validation of biomarker findings is needed.

Limitations

The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. We did not monitor participants’ behavior or activity between 2h and 24h post-intervention time points, although participants were instructed to avoid situations where they might sustain subconcussive head impacts. There is a possibility that factors about which we were unaware outside the study protocol may have contributed to the response of S100B concentration. Other potential confounding variables, such as malignant melanoma [72], major depression disorder [73], sleep quality and quantity, diet, or menstrual cycle phase, were not accounted for; however, our repeated measures study design with participant randomization and a linear mixed effects regression model should minimize any potential subject-level influences on plasma S100B concentrations. We acknowledge that there are other assay methodologies for the detection of S100B such as the Elecsys and Cobas systems (Roche Diagnostics). However, our ELISA method has been utilized in a number of previous studies including Dorminy et al. [29] and our studies [21, 37], and the majority of S100B concentrations in the present study were well within the threshold for CT referral. Our study used a standardized frequency of 10 soccer headings, thus our data can only suggest that 10 headings or fewer do not significantly elevate S100B concentrations. As we do not know the consequence of headings beyond 10 hits, it should not be generalized or concluded that acute subconcussive head impacts are safe. Lastly, we encountered a 15% dropout rate, which was mostly attributed to changes in participants’ schedules during the semester or loss of interest, given that all participants were full-time college students. The present study was conducted in a single-site setting, which limits generalizability of the finding.

Conclusion

There is growing concern that even mild head impacts can cause significant insidious neurotrauma if sustained repetitively. S100B has been suggested to be effective in identifying concussion and more severe forms of TBI; however, subtle changes caused by subconcussive head impacts are more challenging to detect. Our data suggest that plasma S100B is not sensitive enough to monitor acute exposure to subconcussive head impacts from 10 controlled soccer headers. Future studies should continue to investigate S100B and other promising blood biomarkers for subconcussive head impact exposure.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(CSV)

S1 File

(DOCX)

S2 File. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Zachary W. Bevilacqua for his assistance with data collection and Angela M. Wirsching for her help with study administration.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was partly supported from the Indiana Spinal Cord & Brain Injury Research Fund from the Indiana State Department of Health (KK; ISCBIRF 0019939; https://www.in.gov/isdh/23657.htm) and IU School of Public Health faculty research grant program (KK; FRGP: 2246237). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bailes JE, Petraglia AL, Omalu BI, Nauman E, Talavage T. Role of subconcussion in repetitive mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(5):1235–45. Epub 2013/08/27. 10.3171/2013.7.JNS121822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wirsching A, Chen Z, Bevilacqua ZW, Huibregtse ME, Kawata K. Association of Acute Increase in Plasma Neurofilament Light with Repetitive Subconcussive Head Impacts: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(4):548–53. Epub 2018/07/19. 10.1089/neu.2018.5836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Alosco ML, Mez J, Tripodis Y, Kiernan PT, Abdolmohammadi B, Murphy L, et al. Age of first exposure to tackle football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(5):886–901. Epub 2018/05/02. 10.1002/ana.25245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mez J, Daneshvar DH, Abdolmohammadi B, Chua AS, Alosco ML, Kiernan PT, et al. Duration of American football play and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Ann Neurol. 2019. Epub 2019/10/08. 10.1002/ana.25611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McKee AC, Stern RA, Nowinski CJ, Stein TD, Alvarez VE, Daneshvar DH, et al. The spectrum of disease in chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Brain. 2013;136(Pt 1):43–64. Epub 2012/12/05. 10.1093/brain/aws307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Broglio SP, Eckner JT, Martini D, Sosnoff JJ, Kutcher JS, Randolph C. Cumulative head impact burden in high school football. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28(10):2069–78. Epub 2011/07/27. 10.1089/neu.2011.1825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wilcox BJ, Beckwith JG, Greenwald RM, Chu JJ, McAllister TW, Flashman LA, et al. Head impact exposure in male and female collegiate ice hockey players. Journal of biomechanics. 2014;47(1):109–14. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lamond LC, Caccese JB, Buckley TA, Glutting J, Kaminski TW. Linear Acceleration in Direct Head Contact Across Impact Type, Player Position, and Playing Scenario in Collegiate Women’s Soccer Players. J Athl Train. 2018;53(2):115–21. Epub 2018/01/27. 10.4085/1062-6050-90-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Matser EJ, Kessels AG, Lezak MD, Jordan BD, Troost J. Neuropsychological impairment in amateur soccer players. JAMA. 1999;282(10):971–3. Epub 1999/09/15. 10.1001/jama.282.10.971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lipton ML, Kim N, Zimmerman ME, Kim M, Stewart WF, Branch CA, et al. Soccer heading is associated with white matter microstructural and cognitive abnormalities. Radiology. 2013;268(3):850–7. Epub 2013/06/13. 10.1148/radiol.13130545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saunders TD, Le RK, Breedlove KM, Bradney DA, Bowman TG. Sex differences in mechanisms of head impacts in collegiate soccer athletes. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020;74:14–20. Epub 2020/02/26. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.NCAA-Research. Estimated probability of competing in college athletics: NCAA; 2017. [cited 2017 July 20]. https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018RES_2017-18ProbabilityofGoPro_20180423.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zetterberg H, Smith DH, Blennow K. Biomarkers of mild traumatic brain injury in cerebrospinal fluid and blood. Nat Rev Neurol. 2013;9(4):201–10. Epub 2013/02/13. 10.1038/nrneurol.2013.9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.O’Connell B, Kelly AM, Mockler D, Oresic M, Denvir K, Farrell G, et al. Use of Blood Biomarkers in the Assessment of Sports-Related Concussion-A Systematic Review in the Context of Their Biological Significance. Clin J Sport Med. 2018;28(6):561–71. Epub 2017/10/17. 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Strathmann FG, Schulte S, Goerl K, Petron DJ. Blood-based biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: evaluation of research approaches, available methods and potential utility from the clinician and clinical laboratory perspectives. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(10–11):876–88. Epub 2014/02/04. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Steiner J, Bernstein HG, Bogerts B, Gos T, Richter-Landsberg C, Wunderlich MT, et al. S100B is expressed in, and released from, OLN-93 oligodendrocytes: Influence of serum and glucose deprivation. Neuroscience. 2008;154(2):496–503. Epub 2008/05/13. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.03.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kawata K, Liu CY, Merkel SF, Ramirez SH, Tierney RT, Langford D. Blood biomarkers for brain injury: What are we measuring? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;68:460–73. Epub 2016/05/18. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Streitburger DP, Arelin K, Kratzsch J, Thiery J, Steiner J, Villringer A, et al. Validating serum S100B and neuron-specific enolase as biomarkers for the human brain—a combined serum, gene expression and MRI study. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43284 Epub 2012/08/24. 10.1371/journal.pone.0043284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pelinka LE, Kroepfl A, Leixnering M, Buchinger W, Raabe A, Redl H. GFAP versus S100B in serum after traumatic brain injury: relationship to brain damage and outcome. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21(11):1553–61. Epub 2005/02/03. 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Oris C, Pereira B, Durif J, Simon-Pimmel J, Castellani C, Manzano S, et al. The Biomarker S100B and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6). Epub 2018/05/03. 10.1542/peds.2018-0037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kawata K, Rubin LH, Takahagi M, Lee JH, Sim T, Szwanki V, et al. Subconcussive Impact-Dependent Increase in Plasma S100beta Levels in Collegiate Football Players. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(14):2254–60. Epub 2017/02/10. 10.1089/neu.2016.4786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zonner SW, Ejima K, Bevilacqua ZW, Huibregtse ME, Charleston C, Fulgar C, et al. Association of Increased Serum S100B Levels With High School Football Subconcussive Head Impacts. Frontiers in Neurology. 2019;10(327). 10.3389/fneur.2019.00327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rogatzki MJ, Keuler SA, Harris AE, Ringgenberg SW, Breckenridge RE, White JL, et al. Response of protein S100B to playing American football, lifting weights, and treadmill running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(12):2505–14. Epub 2018/09/12. 10.1111/sms.13297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marchi N, Bazarian JJ, Puvenna V, Janigro M, Ghosh C, Zhong J, et al. Consequences of repeated blood-brain barrier disruption in football players. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e56805 Epub 2013/03/14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0056805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dietrich MO, Tort AB, Schaf DV, Farina M, Goncalves CA, Souza DO, et al. Increase in serum S100B protein level after a swimming race. Can J Appl Physiol. 2003;28(5):710–6. Epub 2004/01/09. 10.1139/h03-054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hasselblatt M, Mooren FC, von Ahsen N, Keyvani K, Fromme A, Schwarze-Eicker K, et al. Serum S100beta increases in marathon runners reflect extracranial release rather than glial damage. Neurology. 2004;62(9):1634–6. Epub 2004/05/12. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000123092.97047.b1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Otto M, Holthusen S, Bahn E, Sohnchen N, Wiltfang J, Geese R, et al. Boxing and running lead to a rise in serum levels of S-100B protein. Int J Sports Med. 2000;21(8):551–5. Epub 2001/01/13. 10.1055/s-2000-8480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Straume-Naesheim TM, Andersen TE, Jochum M, Dvorak J, Bahr R. Minor head trauma in soccer and serum levels of S100B. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(6):1297–305; discussion 305–6. 10.1227/01.neu.0000333301.34189.3d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dorminy M, Hoogeveen A, Tierney RT, Higgins M, McDevitt JK, Kretzschmar J. Effect of soccer heading ball speed on S100B, sideline concussion assessments and head impact kinematics. Brain Inj. 2015;29(10):1158–64. Epub 2015/05/26. 10.3109/02699052.2015.1035324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bevilacqua ZW, Huibregtse ME, Kawata K. In Vivo Protocol of Controlled Subconcussive Head Impacts for the Validation of Field Study Data. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2019;146:e59381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Crisco JJ, Fiore R, Beckwith JG, Chu JJ, Brolinson PG, Duma S, et al. Frequency and location of head impact exposures in individual collegiate football players. J Athl Train. 2010;45(6):549–59. Epub 2010/11/11. 10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kawata K, Rubin LH, Lee JH, Sim T, Takahagi M, Szwanki V, et al. Association of Football Subconcussive Head Impacts With Ocular Near Point of Convergence. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(7):763–9. Epub 2016/06/04. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stalnacke BM, Ohlsson A, Tegner Y, Sojka P. Serum concentrations of two biochemical markers of brain tissue damage S-100B and neurone specific enolase are increased in elite female soccer players after a competitive game. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(4):313–6. Epub 2006/03/25. 10.1136/bjsm.2005.021584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stalnacke BM, Tegner Y, Sojka P. Playing soccer increases serum concentrations of the biochemical markers of brain damage S-100B and neuron-specific enolase in elite players: a pilot study. Brain Inj. 2004;18(9):899–909. Epub 2004/06/30. 10.1080/02699050410001671865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kawata K, Tierney R, Phillips J, Jeka JJ. Effect of Repetitive Sub-concussive Head Impacts on Ocular Near Point of Convergence. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37(5):405–10. Epub 2016/02/10. 10.1055/s-0035-1569290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hwang S, Ma L, Kawata K, Tierney R, Jeka JJ. Vestibular Dysfunction after Subconcussive Head Impact. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(1):8–15. Epub 2016/02/18. 10.1089/neu.2015.4238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zonner S, Ejima K, Bevilacqua ZW, Huibregtse ME, Charleston C, Fulgar CC, et al. Association of increased serum S100B levels with high school football subconcussive head impacts. Frontiers in neurology. 2019;10:327 10.3389/fneur.2019.00327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bevilacqua ZW, Huibregtse ME, Kawata K. In Vivo Protocol of Controlled Subconcussive Head Impacts for the Validation of Field Study Data. J Vis Exp. 2019;(146). Epub 2019/05/07. 10.3791/59381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Babbs CF. Biomechanics of heading a soccer ball: implications for player safety. ScientificWorldJournal. 2001;1:281–322. Epub 2003/06/14. 10.1100/tsw.2001.56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dorminy M, Hoogeveen A, Tierney RT, Higgins M, McDevitt JK, Kretzschmar J. Effect of soccer heading ball speed on S100B, sideline concussion assessments and head impact kinematics. Brain Inj. 2015:1–7. Epub 2015/05/26. 10.3109/02699052.2015.1035324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nowak MK, Bevilacqua ZW, Ejima K, Huibregtse ME, Chen Z, Mickleborough TD, et al. Neuro-Ophthalmologic Response to Repetitive Subconcussive Head Impacts: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020. Epub 2020/02/14. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.6128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Spiotta AM, Bartsch AJ, Benzel EC. Heading in soccer: dangerous play? Neurosurgery. 2012;70(1):1–11; discussion Epub 2011/08/04. 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823021b2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Duma SM, Manoogian SJ, Bussone WR, Brolinson PG, Goforth MW, Donnenwerth JJ, et al. Analysis of real-time head accelerations in collegiate football players. Clin J Sport Med. 2005;15(1):3–8. Epub 2005/01/18. 10.1097/00042752-200501000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Townend W, Dibble C, Abid K, Vail A, Sherwood R, Lecky F. Rapid elimination of protein S-100B from serum after minor head trauma. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23(2):149–55. Epub 2006/03/01. 10.1089/neu.2006.23.149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ingebrigtsen T, Romner B. Biochemical serum markers of traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2002;52(4):798–808. Epub 2002/04/17. 10.1097/00005373-200204000-00038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jackson RG, Samra GS, Radcliffe J, Clark GH, Price CP. The early fall in levels of S-100 beta in traumatic brain injury. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000;38(11):1165–7. Epub 2001/01/13. 10.1515/CCLM.2000.179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Stalnacke BM, Sojka P. Repeatedly Heading a Soccer Ball Does Not Increase Serum Levels of S-100B, a Biochemical Marker of Brain Tissue Damage: an Experimental Study. Biomark Insights. 2008;3:87–91. Epub 2008/01/01. 10.4137/bmi.s359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Puvenna V, Brennan C, Shaw G, Yang C, Marchi N, Bazarian JJ, et al. Significance of ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 elevations in athletes after sub-concussive head hits. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96296 Epub 2014/05/09. 10.1371/journal.pone.0096296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Meier TB, Nelson LD, Huber DL, Bazarian JJ, Hayes RL, McCrea MA. Prospective Assessment of Acute Blood Markers of Brain Injury in Sport-Related Concussion. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(22):3134–42. Epub 2017/07/13. 10.1089/neu.2017.5046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Czeiter E, Amrein K, Gravesteijn BY, Lecky F, Menon DK, Mondello S, et al. Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: Relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study. EBioMedicine. 2020;56:102785 Epub 2020/05/29. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Huang M, Dong XQ, Hu YY, Yu WH, Zhang ZY. High S100B levels in cerebrospinal fluid and peripheral blood of patients with acute basal ganglial hemorrhage are associated with poor outcome. World J Emerg Med. 2010;1(1):22–31. Epub 2010/01/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bazarian JJ, Zhu T, Zhong J, Janigro D, Rozen E, Roberts A, et al. Persistent, long-term cerebral white matter changes after sports-related repetitive head impacts. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94734 Epub 2014/04/18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kirchhoff C, Buhmann S, Braunstein V, Leidel BA, Vogel T, Kreimeier U, et al. Cerebrospinal s100-B: a potential marker for progressive intracranial hemorrhage in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Eur J Med Res. 2008;13(11):511–6. Epub 2008/12/17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Romner B, Ingebrigtsen T, Kongstad P, Borgesen SE. Traumatic brain damage: serum S-100 protein measurements related to neuroradiological findings. J Neurotrauma. 2000;17(8):641–7. Epub 2000/09/06. 10.1089/089771500415391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR, Van Berkum Clark M, Eisenberg H, Jane JA, et al. The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography. J Neurotrauma. 1992;9 Suppl 1:S287–92. Epub 1992/03/01. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ingebrigtsen T, Waterloo K, Jacobsen EA, Langbakk B, Romner B. Traumatic brain damage in minor head injury: relation of serum S-100 protein measurements to magnetic resonance imaging and neurobehavioral outcome. Neurosurgery. 1999;45(3):468–75; discussion 75–6. Epub 1999/09/24. 10.1097/00006123-199909000-00010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Anderson RE, Hansson LO, Nilsson O, Dijlai-Merzoug R, Settergren G. High serum S100B levels for trauma patients without head injuries. Neurosurgery. 2001;48(6):1255–8; discussion 8–60. Epub 2001/06/01. 10.1097/00006123-200106000-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Savola O, Pyhtinen J, Leino TK, Siitonen S, Niemela O, Hillbom M. Effects of head and extracranial injuries on serum protein S100B levels in trauma patients. The Journal of trauma. 2004;56(6):1229–34; discussion 34. Epub 2004/06/24. 10.1097/01.ta.0000096644.08735.72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Stalnacke BM, Tegner Y, Sojka P. Playing ice hockey and basketball increases serum levels of S-100B in elite players: a pilot study. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(5):292–302. Epub 2003/09/23. 10.1097/00042752-200309000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gannon JM, Kelly DL, Besch A, Thakur T, Khurana N, Shurin MR, et al. Racial Differences in S100b Levels in Persons with Schizophrenia. Psychiatr Q. 2020;91(1):137–45. Epub 2019/12/02. 10.1007/s11126-019-09687-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schroeter ML, Abdul-Khaliq H, Diefenbacher A, Blasig IE. S100B is increased in mood disorders and may be reduced by antidepressive treatment. Neuroreport. 2002;13(13):1675–8. Epub 2002/09/28. 10.1097/00001756-200209160-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Keary TA, Gunstad J, Neal DJ, Spitznagel MB, Glickman E, Juvancic-Heltzel J, et al. Light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with S100beta and amyloid beta levels in healthy older adults. Exp Aging Res. 2008;34(2):101–13. Epub 2008/03/21. 10.1080/03610730701876920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rogatzki MJ, Soja SE, McCabe CA, Breckenridge RE, White JL, Baker JS. Biomarkers of brain injury following an American football game: A pilot study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2016;29(3):450–7. Epub 2016/07/09. 10.1177/0394632016657091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.McCuen E, Svaldi D, Breedlove K, Kraz N, Cummiskey B, Breedlove EL, et al. Collegiate women’s soccer players suffer greater cumulative head impacts than their high school counterparts. J Biomech. 2015;48(13):3720–3. Epub 2015/09/04. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Reynolds BB, Patrie J, Henry EJ, Goodkin HP, Broshek DK, Wintermark M, et al. Practice type effects on head impact in collegiate football. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(2):501–10. Epub 2015/08/05. 10.3171/2015.5.JNS15573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Blyth BJ, Farhavar A, Gee C, Hawthorn B, He H, Nayak A, et al. Validation of serum markers for blood-brain barrier disruption in traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26(9):1497–507. Epub 2009/03/05. 10.1089/neu.2008.0738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lindblad C, Nelson DW, Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Ghatan PH, von Horn H, et al. Influence of Blood-Brain Barrier Integrity on Brain Protein Biomarker Clearance in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Longitudinal Prospective Study. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(12):1381–91. Epub 2020/02/06. 10.1089/neu.2019.6741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Xie L, Kang H, Xu Q, Chen MJ, Liao Y, Thiyagarajan M, et al. Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain. Science. 2013;342(6156):373–7. Epub 2013/10/19. 10.1126/science.1241224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Papa L, Zonfrillo MR, Welch RD, Lewis LM, Braga CF, Tan CN, et al. Evaluating glial and neuronal blood biomarkers GFAP and UCH-L1 as gradients of brain injury in concussive, subconcussive and non-concussive trauma: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019;3(1):e000473 Epub 2019/09/19. 10.1136/bmjpo-2019-000473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Di Battista AP, Buonora JE, Rhind SG, Hutchison MG, Baker AJ, Rizoli SB, et al. Blood Biomarkers in Moderate-To-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Potential Utility of a Multi-Marker Approach in Characterizing Outcome. Front Neurol. 2015;6:110 Epub 2015/06/16. 10.3389/fneur.2015.00110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Janigro D, Kawata K, Silverman E, Marchi N, Diaz-Arrastia R. Is Salivary S100B a Biomarker of Traumatic Brain Injury? A Pilot Study. Frontiers in neurology. 2020;11:528 Epub 2020/07/01. 10.3389/fneur.2020.00528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Harpio R, Einarsson R. S100 proteins as cancer biomarkers with focus on S100B in malignant melanoma. Clin Biochem. 2004;37(7):512–8. Epub 2004/07/06. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2004.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Arora P, Sagar R, Mehta M, Pallavi P, Sharma S, Mukhopadhyay AK. Serum S100B levels in patients with depression. Indian J Psychiatry. 2019;61(1):70–6. Epub 2019/02/13. 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_391_16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Leonardo A Peyré-Tartaruga

30 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-15329

Does acute soccer heading cause an increase in plasma S100B? A randomized, controlled clinical trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawata,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

While I find the study well-written and organized, some major concerns were raised by the reviewers and by me. Please, consider replying carefully all questions.

 

Abstract, line 27: which hypothesis was tested? (please state it).

 

Abstract, purpose: please consider modifying your purpose focusing on testing effect rather than examining relationship.

 

Abstract, results: Please add effect sizes and not just p-values. Focus on group contrasts in the reporting (please see the PREPARE Trial guide for guidance).

 

Abstract, conclusion: The study hypothesis was superiority, which was not supported. So, the authors need concluding  that clearly. Please conclude on the primary outcome firstly and secondary outcomes secondly and separately. Please make sure that the conclusion in the abstract is identical to the one I the manuscript text, if revised.  

 

Abstract, end: Please add clinical-trial registration-info at the end of the abstract. Because it seems as if the trial was retrospectively registered (registration after inclusion of the first participant) add “retrospectively registered” after the trial registration number. Please state clearly in the manuscript if the primary outcome was pre-defined (defined before inclusion of the first participant).

 

Introduction: To make sure placing your research in context, please include level 1a evidence (systematic reviews) if possible (for example systematic reviews on biomarkers related to concussion/traumatic brain injury).

 

Outcomes: Outcomes are the variables tested/compared, please consider changing that, indicating which variables were the primary and secondary outcomes. Analyzing your register a clinical trials site I wonder why you did not include Ocular-Motor Function (Over Time in Relation to the Baseline) measures? Please, include all analysis as registered. And the blood biomarkers? Just S100B?

 

Hypotheses

Consider including more objective hypotheses, not just diff or not, but y higher than x condition style.

Registration: Please check if any differences exist between that registered in Clinical.Trials.gov and that reported in the manuscript. This includes: outcomes, objective, in- and exclusion criteria etc. Please explain any changes.

Inclusion: Which sampling strategy was used? Random sampling or convenience sampling, for example? Please state this.

Methods, sample size estimation: Please write out the sample size estimation so that others can replicate it. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1732for guidance. Please state what was considered the minimal clinical important difference (between-conditions).

Was it possible to account for confounding factors across groups, such as the effect of pharmacological doses?

Statistics: Please pay careful attention to the review from Reviewer 1, who is a statistician. Please state clearly if your analysis approach was intention-to-treat (ITT) and how missing values were imputated. And, most importantly your statistical model needs to be changed to GEE or mixed models, where the ITT should be possible.

Please remove statistical tests for baseline differences. CONSORT advise against this. Please see http://www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/CONSORT%202010%20Explanation%20and%20Elaboration%20Document-BMJ.pdf  page 17.

Table 1, there is line without data. Consider adjusting the table removing vertical lines and marking in italic the subtitles (kinematics).

Results and Stats: please report 95CI of all variables and effect sizes.

Discussion: One para addressing some potential applications of your findings can be useful for practitioners

Discussion: given that S100b is a blood Marker of intense Brain injury, consider discussing on potential mechanisms explaining the similarities.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Leonardo A. Peyré-Tartaruga, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

a) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

b) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

Please also ensure you report the date at which the ethics committee approved the study as well as the complete date range for patient recruitment and follow-up in the Methods section of your manuscript.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors here have looked at a randomised trial of some 68 participants proceeding to intervention. The use of randomisation is to be applauded here - although one does question whether a crossover design might have helped control for heterogeneity between subjects better.

The reason for the sample size and the size of difference deemed important here is not given. This is crucial to understanding the minimum important difference to be looked at in S100b. Indeed actual differences (b as opposed to the normalised beta coefficients) and their confidence intervals are required to be given and inference based upon the confidence intervals - if no difference is seen can one rule out a meaningful difference or is this absence of evidence as opposed to evidence of absence. This is crucial here.

Some variables are clearly not Normal (eg where the sd is more than half the mean) so t-tests are not appropriate, and indeed the data cannot properly be represented suing mean and sd in tables.

In terms of secondary outcome measures what are the results of a repeated measures analysis?

In the CONSORT diagram, reasons for dropout are required. It seems strange to be happy to commit to either group and then drop out before the actual intervention.

Reviewer #2: Review original research article

“Does acute soccer heading cause an increase in plasma S100B? A randomized, controlled clinical trial”

This randomized controlled clinical study aimed to examine the relationship between subconcussive head impacts and changes in plasma S100B. S100B is a blood biomarker that has been explored as potential objective diagnostic tool to gauge the severity of brain injury. In this context, previous studies have detected elevations in S100B after acute exposure to subconcussive head impacts. Therefore, this study examined the acute response of S100B after heading multiple times. As S100B is a strong predictor of mortality after sustaining TBI, it is worth examining if heading in soccer might have an impact on S100B values. The manuscript is well written and the structure is clear and comprehensible. Therefore, the structure and language/grammar etc. does not require much revision. However, there are some aspects that need revision in order to be considered being published.

Major comments:

Currently, it is unclear whether heading effects players’ brain anatomy and physiology. Therefore, the scientific debate continues about a potential header-induced brain damage for elite and amateur football players. Acute effects of heading on blood biomarkers such as S100B are important in the light of possible short- or long-term consequences. However, in the present study 10 headers performed by football players were chosen. Some important questions remain:

What was the rationale to choose 10 headers? Are 10 headers supposed to simulate the heading incidence in football to investigate the acute effects of heading? Are 10 headers a mean number of headers that are performed in real-life by players? I would like to see this clearly mentioned in the introduction and methods section. As this is an artificial laboratory experiment, I think it is necessary to explain how this experiment may be linked to realistic match play with heading exposure. Please specify.

Minor comments:

Introduction page 2 lines 44-46: The spectrum of long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries or subconcussive head impacts either caused by a single or by repetitive head traumas, mainly refers to three severe medical conditions as they represent the most clinically relevant and severe examples: chronic post-concussion syndrome (PCS), neurocognitive impairments (e.g. mild cognitive impairment (MCI) up to the point of dementia), and the chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Maybe add the first two conditions as potential long-term consequences.

Introduction page 3 lines 50-52: These studies used questionnaires to assess heading numbers. Such numbers should be interpreted with caution. Please add prospective data of real-life heading in soccer.

Introduction page 3 lines 72-73: Here, heading is defined as a sub-concussive blow. The term “sub-concussive” describes a cranial impact with potential neuronal changes similar to those in concussion, but without the symptoms of a concussion (Bailes et al. 2013). I’d like to see this aspect sufficiently discussed in the discussion section, in detail is there a certain threshold to be a sub-concussive event etc.?

Methods page 5 line 109: Any information on sample size calculations?

Methods page 5 lines 110-111: Participants were instructed to refrain from any activity that involved head impacts during the study period, but did you control for head impacts prior to the investigation (e.g. the day before etc.)?

Methods page 5 lines 115-116: Here you cite ref 27, in the introduction ref 24, both appear to be the same reference. Please correct.

Methods page 6 line 120: A short information why 25 mph was chosen exactly, although this information might be found in the cited paradigm.

Methods page 6 lines 129 ff: Could you tell the reader something about the half-life of S100B as mentioned on page 4 line 80?

Discussion page 11 lines 222-224: References?

Discussion page 11 lines 228-230: Is it possible to add how far beyond those of physical exercise effects?

Discussion page 12 lines 244-248: This information is important (see my previous comments) to strengthen the purpose of this study. Such info should be added in the introduction and methods section to offer the reader an explanation why exactly 10 headers were chosen. Additionally, what kind of head impacts were differentiated in these studies?

Discussion page 13 lines 264-265: Could you add some examples, which factors might have influenced S100B concentrations despite the ones you already mentioned throughout the manuscript, if any?

Discussion page 13 lines 265-267: Do these (confounding) variables have an influence on S100B concentrations?

References: Please check ref 24 and ref 27.

References page 17 line 371: Delete.

Comment figure 2: Possibly renew this figure. Area 0-100 bigger?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 23;15(10):e0239507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239507.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jul 2020

Dear Dr. Peyré-Tartaruga and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions. We appreciate the time and effort that went into the review of our manuscript, and we believe that our manuscript has been significantly improved through this revision. We have responded to your points one by one, as follows.

Editorial Comments:

1) “Abstract, line 27: which hypothesis was tested? (please state it).”

RESPONSE: We have revised the abstract to clearly state the primary hypothesis that there would be a significant between-group difference (group-by-time interaction) in plasma S100B at 2h post-intervention. This primary hypothesis (outcome) was followed by a series of secondary hypotheses (outcomes).

2) “Abstract, purpose: please consider modifying your purpose focusing on testing effect rather than examining relationship.”

RESPONSE: We have revised the first sentence of the abstract in a way that we focused on testing the effect of subconcussive head impacts on acute changes in plasma S100B levels. Thank you for the suggestion.

3) “Abstract, results: Please add effect sizes and not just p-values. Focus on group contrasts in the reporting (please see the PREPARE Trial guide for guidance).”

RESPONSE: The results in the abstract have been revised to contain the unstandardized �, 95%CI, and p-values. Further, the abstract has been revised to emphasize group contracts.

4) “Abstract, conclusion: The study hypothesis was superiority, which was not supported. So, the authors need concluding that clearly. Please conclude on the primary outcome firstly and secondary outcomes secondly and separately. Please make sure that the conclusion in the abstract is identical to the one in the manuscript text, if revised.”

RESPONSE: We have revised the abstract to clarify both the hypotheses and the conclusions, which correspond to the main text.

5) “Abstract, end: Please add clinical-trial registration-info at the end of the abstract. Because it seems as if the trial was retrospectively registered (registration after inclusion of the first participant) add “retrospectively registered” after the trial registration number. Please state clearly in the manuscript if the primary outcome was pre-defined (defined before inclusion of the first participant).”

RESPONSE: The clinical trial registration information has been added to the end of the abstract: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03488381; retrospectively registered). As per the IRB protocol (available at the ClinicalTrials registration page), the primary outcomes were established prior to enrollment of the first participant; however, as discussed in our response to comments 7 and 9 below, S100B was added as an additional biomarker of interest after the study had begun. Our rationale for the primary hypothesis hinged on what is known about the half-life of S100B in the bloodstream, which has been added to the “Plasma sampling and S100B measurement” subsection of the Methods.

6) “Introduction: To make sure placing your research in context, please include level 1a evidence (systematic reviews) if possible (for example systematic reviews on biomarkers related to concussion/traumatic brain injury).”

RESPONSE: We included biomarker systematic review by O’Connell et al. and a meta-analysis on S100B in concussion by Oris et al.

7) “Outcomes: Outcomes are the variables tested/compared, please consider changing that, indicating which variables were the primary and secondary outcomes. Analyzing your register a clinical trials site I wonder why you did not include Ocular-Motor Function (Over Time in Relation to the Baseline) measures? Please, include all analysis as registered. And the blood biomarkers? Just S100B?”

RESPONSE: We have updated the outcomes subsection of the Methods to clarify what was tested for each hypothesis. The trial was designed to address various aspects of neurologic response against 10 repetitive headings. We agree that including all variables in a paper is one way of presenting the data, while we are aware that each modality and biomarker reflect different aspects of neurologic health. For example, ocular-motor testing assesses functional response, whereas S100B is reflective of astrocyte activation. The source of S100B is different from tau or neurofilament (axons). Given that S100B is one of the most extensively studied biomarkers with split results, we therefore focused on S100B in this paper to demonstrate the utility of S100B in gauging subconcussive astrocyte response.

8) “Hypotheses. Consider including more objective hypotheses, not just diff or not, but y higher than x condition style.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. We had long discussion about this objective hypothesis. Although it may be more captivating and possibly stronger to have objective cut-off levels in our hypothesis (e.g., the heading group will show 60 pg/mL higher levels of S100B at 2h post compared to that of the kicking-control group). However, we ran into an issue of unclear threshold for S100B that is linked to brain damage/astrocyte activation. Previous studies have shown varied degrees of S100B elevation after subconcussive head impacts. This variability is possibly due to testing methods (ELISA vs. Chemiluminescent assay) and uncontrolled extraneous factors in field studies. To this end, we decided to keep our hypothesis style as is but included more direction to our primary and secondary hypotheses.

9) “Registration: Please check if any differences exist between that registered in Clinical.Trials.gov and that reported in the manuscript. This includes: outcomes, objective, in- and exclusion criteria etc. Please explain any changes.

Inclusion: Which sampling strategy was used? Random sampling or convenience sampling, for example? Please state this.”

RESPONSE: There are no differences in any procedural items between the manuscript and registered protocol regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, time points, yet as you pointed out that we did not specify sampling strategy in the manuscript nor the protocol. This is a single-site trial with convenient sampling of young adults who are enrolled as students at Indiana University. We state this in the Participants section.

10) “Methods, sample size estimation: Please write out the sample size estimation so that others can replicate it. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1732for guidance. Please state what was considered the minimal clinical important difference (between-conditions).”

RESPONSE: We have added the sample size estimation and estimated attrition rate for the primary outcome to the “Participants” subsection of the Methods. The minimal clinical important difference was considered to be a group difference of 25 pg/mL.

11) “Was it possible to account for confounding factors across groups, such as the effect of pharmacological doses?”

RESPONSE: This is an important point. The novelty of this study is the use of repeated measures design with controlled intervention that can eliminate many extraneous factors. Recruited subjects are from generally a healthy cohort (college-aged young adults) and we did not observe any group differences in the demographic variables presented in Table 1. Therefore, we decided that the only factor that we would adjust the model by would be BMI, since S100B is known to be released by adipocytes [1, 2].

12) “Statistics: Please pay careful attention to the review from Reviewer 1, who is a statistician. Please state clearly if your analysis approach was intention-to-treat (ITT) and how missing values were imputated. And, most importantly your statistical model needs to be changed to GEE or mixed models, where the ITT should be possible.”

RESPONSE: Thank for you for drawing our attention to this ambiguity. We have switched our analysis to use a mixed effect regression model, and missing values were not imputed and were assumed missing completely at random (MCAR). Thus, our analysis approach is still ITT as all available data points are used in the analysis. We have revised the “Statistical Analysis” subsection of the Methods and the Results accordingly.

13) “Please remove statistical tests for baseline differences. CONSORT advise against this. Please see http://www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/CONSORT%202010%20Explanation%20and%20Elaboration%20Document-BMJ.pdf page 17.”

RESPONSE: This has been removed. Thank you for providing this BMJ document.

14) “Table 1, there is line without data. Consider adjusting the table removing vertical lines and marking in italic the subtitles (kinematics).”

RESPONSE: We have reformatted Table 1 as per your suggestions.

15) “Results and Stats: please report 95CI of all variables and effect sizes.”

RESPONSE: SEs have been replaced with the 95CI for all variables. The non-standardized beta coefficients are given in the text.

16) “Discussion: One paragraph addressing some potential applications of your findings can be useful for practitioners.”

RESPONSE: We have added an additional paragraph (Clinical Implication section, before the limitation section) addressing potential clinical implication of our result, by mostly calling for a caution when using S100B to manage acute subconcussive head impacts. As discussed in this new paragraph, we emphasized the importance of using a panel of biomarker or multimodal approach (e.g., biomarker x neuroimaging) to aid in diagnosis, athlete monitoring, and optimal guidelines for return to play.

17) “Discussion: given that S100b is a blood marker of intense brain injury, consider discussing on potential mechanisms explaining the similarities.”

RESPONSE: The similarities in potential mechanism between mild-moderate-severe TBI and subconcussive head impacts are elaborated throughout the discussion, yet mechanistic insight of S100B as a biomarker for brain injury requires a multimodal approach (perhaps with advanced neuroimaging). We also encourage the multimodal approach as part of clinical implication and limitation sections. Thank you for the suggestion.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1:

1) “The reason for the sample size and the size of difference deemed important here is not given. This is crucial to understanding the minimum important difference to be looked at in S100b. Indeed actual differences (b as opposed to the normalised beta coefficients) and their confidence intervals are required to be given and inference based upon the confidence intervals - if no difference is seen can one rule out a meaningful difference or is this absence of evidence as opposed to evidence of absence. This is crucial here.”

RESPONSE: This is a great suggestion. We have added the sample size calculation and the MCID to the “Participants” subsection of the Methods. The regression coefficients given in the manuscript are not normalized (condition and timepoint are dummy-coded; BMI was standardized) and therefore represent the change in S100B (in pg/mL). We have given the confidence intervals, rather than reporting the standard errors, for the coefficients.

2) “Some variables are clearly not Normal (eg where the sd is more than half the mean) so t-tests are not appropriate, and indeed the data cannot properly be represented suing mean and sd in tables.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing out this oversight. After confirming that these variables did not follow a normal distribution, we have used Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test for our demographic variables. Table 1 and the Statistical Analysis section are adjusted accordingly.

3) “In terms of secondary outcome measures what are the results of a repeated measures analysis?”

RESPONSE: Both the new mixed-effect regression model (MRM) and the original linear quantile mixed model (LQMM) analyses accounted for repeated measures analyses. As suggested by the editor, in this revision, we used MRM, instead of LQMM, to test both primary and secondary outcomes. The results of the secondary outcomes— both the time and group*time at 0h and 24h effects—are reported in the text. In addition, we have moved Supplemental Table 1 (containing the time effects within each group) into the main text (becoming Table 2), which will better inform readers regarding our secondary outcomes.

4) “In the CONSORT diagram, reasons for dropout are required. It seems strange to be happy to commit to either group and then drop out before the actual intervention.”

RESPONSE: A total of 11 participants (almost entirely undergraduate students) consented to participate in the study and were therefore randomized to an intervention group but voluntarily withdrew during the scheduling process due to a variety of personal reasons, such as loss of interest, running out of free time before exams or an academic break, unpredictable schedule changes, etc. Some subjects provided us with reasons of withdrawal while others stopped responding to our reminders. Therefore, we are unable to provide exact reasons for all 11 withdrawal. To this reason, we kept “voluntary withdrawal” as is and elaborated briefly in the limitation section.

Reviewer #2:

Major comments:

1) “What was the rationale to choose 10 headers? Are 10 headers supposed to simulate the heading incidence in football to investigate the acute effects of heading? Are 10 headers a mean number of headers that are performed in real-life by players? I would like to see this clearly mentioned in the introduction and methods section. As this is an artificial laboratory experiment, I think it is necessary to explain how this experiment may be linked to realistic match play with heading exposure. Please specify.”

RESPONSE: This is an important point to clarify here and in the manuscript. The frequency of 10 soccer headers in our model is a perfect balance between feasibility, safety, and clinical implication. If our intervention includes, for instance, 20 headers each day for 4-5 days in a row, it is indeed mimicking some athletes with very high frequent exposure. However, that is unsafe (from IRB standpoint) and infeasible (difficulty in retaining subjects). Heading frequency is largely dependent on playing style, position, levels, and coaching philosophy, but a player heads the ball an average of 6-12 times per game [3]. Furthermore, a collegiate American football players incurs an average of 7 to 10 hits per practice, with a mean peak linear acceleration per impact ranging from 28 to 32 g [4, 5]. Therefore, our subconcussive intervention that consists of 10 headers with 33 g per header is translatable beyond soccer. We have added this explanation to the methods section (“Soccer heading intervention” subsection), and the clinical implication of our intervention was detailed in the 4th paragraph of the discussion section.

Minor comments:

2) “Introduction page 2 lines 44-46: The spectrum of long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries or subconcussive head impacts either caused by a single or by repetitive head traumas, mainly refers to three severe medical conditions as they represent the most clinically relevant and severe examples: chronic post-concussion syndrome (PCS), neurocognitive impairments (e.g. mild cognitive impairment (MCI) up to the point of dementia), and the chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Maybe add the first two conditions as potential long-term consequences.”

RESPONSE: We agree that it is better to provide the spectrum of neurologic consequences due to subconcussive head impacts. I addition to CTE, we have added “neurological impairments” to better represent the spectrum of potential consequences of exposure to subconcussive head impacts. We discussed among the team about PCS and given that our focus is subconcussive head impacts, which do not directly lead to PCS; therefore, we omit inclusion of PCS in the introduction. Thank you for the pointing this out.

3) “Introduction page 3 lines 50-52: These studies used questionnaires to assess heading numbers. Such numbers should be interpreted with caution. Please add prospective data of real-life heading in soccer.”

RESPONSE: Real-life soccer heading frequency data by Saunders et al. (2020) has been added to the introduction to balance the heading data collected from retrospective questionnaires used in Lipton et al. (2013) and Matser et al. (1999).

4) “Introduction page 3 lines 72-73: Here, heading is defined as a sub-concussive blow. The term “sub-concussive” describes a cranial impact with potential neuronal changes similar to those in concussion, but without the symptoms of a concussion (Bailes et al. 2013). I’d like to see this aspect sufficiently discussed in the discussion section, in detail is there a certain threshold to be a sub-concussive event etc.?”

RESPONSE: This is a great point with unclear consensus among the neurotrauma research community. Currently there is no definite threshold identifying what type and magnitude of head impacts elicit symptoms (concussion) and remain asymptomatic (subconcussion). For this reason, some investigators, mainly led by Drs. Talavage and Nauman at Purdue University, lately began using the term “head acceleration event” instead of “subconcussive head impacts”. At the end of the 2nd paragraph in the discussion, we have added further information of how every impact is dynamic and individualized, as well as the difficulties it leads to when tracking neurological deficits. This new addition also provides readers with examples of factors that may influence outcomes from subconcussive impacts.

5) “Methods page 5 line 109: Any information on sample size calculations?

RESPONSE: The sample size calculation has been added to the “Participants” subsection of the Methods.”

6) “Methods page 5 lines 110-111: Participants were instructed to refrain from any activity that involved head impacts during the study period, but did you control for head impacts prior to the investigation (e.g. the day before etc.)?”

RESPONSE: Additional information on participants responsibility has been added. Participants were asked at the beginning of both days 1 and 2 of the study regarding any activity that involved head impacts. However, we did not control for head impacts outside of this time frame of 24 hours prior to the start of the study. The participants were not in season; thus, minimizing the chances of individuals experiencing head impacts outside of our study.

7) “Methods page 5 lines 115-116: Here you cite ref 27, in the introduction ref 24, both appear to be the same reference. Please correct.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Citations and bibliography have been updated accordingly.

8) “Methods page 6 line 120: A short information why 25 mph was chosen exactly, although this information might be found in the cited paradigm.”

RESPONSE: Further detail is provided to justify the chosen characteristics of the soccer heading protocol. The information added allows readers to compare our lab protocol with real world situations.

9) “Methods page 6 lines 129 ff: Could you tell the reader something about the half-life of S100B as mentioned on page 4 line 80?”

RESPONSE: Additional past literature examining S100B half-life in reference to mTBI has been added to the methods section. We also elaborated in the discussion regarding the time-course utility of S100B in identifying the presence of intracranial bleeding in concussion patients. This will provide the reader with current suggested information on the half-life of S100B and the relation to our study protocol.

10) “Discussion page 11 lines 222-224: References?”

RESPONSE: References have been clarified and added as per your suggestion.

11) “Discussion page 11 lines 228-230: Is it possible to add how far beyond those of physical exercise effects?”

RESPONSE: As reported in Kiechle et al. (2014, PLOS ONE), the post-exertional serum S100B levels (mean 0.071±0.03 µg/L; not significantly different from pre-exertion) were not directly compared to 3h post-sports related concussion (SRC) serum S100B levels (mean 0.099±0.008 µg/L; significantly different from baseline: 0.058±0.006 µg/L). However, ROC analyses revealed an AUC of 0.772 for the absolute post-exertion/SRC value and 0.904 for the proportional increase in serum S100B, suggesting that serum S100B can distinguish between non-contact exertion and SRC. We have added the AUC for the proportional increase to illustrate this.

12) “Discussion page 12 lines 244-248: This information is important (see my previous comments) to strengthen the purpose of this study. Such info should be added in the introduction and methods section to offer the reader an explanation why exactly 10 headers were chosen. Additionally, what kind of head impacts were differentiated in these studies?”

RESPONSE: Agreed, elaborating on the rationale behind selecting 10 headers strengthens the purpose of our study. We have added a detailed explanation to the “Soccer heading intervention” subsection of the methods (as specified above in response to your first comment.) We have also added a brief explanation for why 10 headers were chosen to the last paragraph of the introduction, just before the hypotheses.

As for your last question, our citation for the 90th percentile peak linear acceleration of head impacts in female collegiate soccer players was McCuen et al. (2015) in which the head impacts were not differentiated by type and included impacts from headers, falls, collisions with other soccer players, and whiplash-like events. Stälnacke et al. (2004) had two independent researchers watch video recordings of games and separately classify acceleration/deceleration events into headers, jumps, falls, and collisions; the range of headers per player per game was 0-19. Duma et al. (2005) and Crisco et al. (2010) differentiate head impacts by location using HITS data, but not by impact type, in their respective studies of collegiate American football player. Kawata et al. (2016) and Reynolds et al. (2016) did not report data on head impact location but did specify collegiate football practice type (pads-on, pads-off, helmet only, etc). Finally, Broglio et al. (2011) reported the cumulative head impact burden in high school football players, differentiated head impacts that occurred in practices from games, and used impact location in the calculation of the HIT severity profile (but did not report any data on the distribution of head impacts by helmet location. We have revised this portion of the discussion to clarify and provide additional detail to justify the selection of 10 headers for the soccer heading model.

13) “Discussion page 13 lines 264-265: Could you add some examples, which factors might have influenced S100B concentrations despite the ones you already mentioned throughout the manuscript, if any?”

RESPONSE: In addition to what was already mentioned throughout the manuscript, studies examining possible influential factors of S100B have now been included into the manuscript. With your suggestion, we provide examples of other potential factors, such as BMI, race, alcohol consumption, and mood disorders with appropriate citations in the 3rd paragraph of the Discussion section.

14) “Discussion page 13 lines 265-267: Do these (confounding) variables have an influence on S100B concentrations?”

RESPONSE: Same as our response above #13, several factors have shown to influence S100B levels. Our controlled heading model was able to eliminate all these factors, which is the novelty of this RCT.

15) “References: Please check ref 24 and ref 27.”

RESPONSE: Citations and bibliography have been updated accordingly.

16) “References page 17 line 371: Delete.”

RESPONSE: This line is continued from the line above it. It contains the end of the reference above. We have updated the reference and left the format as is.

17) “Comment figure 2: Possibly renew this figure. Area 0-100 bigger?”

RESPONSE: Figure 2 has been reworked to enlarge the 0-100 pg/mL range and to make the image easier to understand. Following our changes to the original analysis, Figure 2 has been updated to reflect our updated analysis of mixed-effect regression model (MRM). This model resulted in a figure that is more readily interpreted.

References

1. Anderson RE, Hansson LO, Nilsson O, Dijlai-Merzoug R, Settergren G. High serum S100B levels for trauma patients without head injuries. Neurosurgery. 2001;48(6):1255-8; discussion 8-60. Epub 2001/06/01. doi: 10.1097/00006123-200106000-00012. PubMed PMID: 11383727.

2. Savola O, Pyhtinen J, Leino TK, Siitonen S, Niemela O, Hillbom M. Effects of head and extracranial injuries on serum protein S100B levels in trauma patients. J Trauma. 2004;56(6):1229-34; discussion 34. Epub 2004/06/24. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000096644.08735.72. PubMed PMID: 15211130.

3. Spiotta AM, Bartsch AJ, Benzel EC. Heading in soccer: dangerous play? Neurosurgery. 2012;70(1):1-11; discussion Epub 2011/08/04. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823021b2. PubMed PMID: 21811187.

4. Duma SM, Manoogian SJ, Bussone WR, Brolinson PG, Goforth MW, Donnenwerth JJ, et al. Analysis of real-time head accelerations in collegiate football players. Clin J Sport Med. 2005;15(1):3-8. Epub 2005/01/18. PubMed PMID: 15654184.

5. Kawata K, Rubin LH, Lee JH, Sim T, Takahagi M, Szwanki V, et al. Association of Football Subconcussive Head Impacts With Ocular Near Point of Convergence. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(7):763-9. Epub 2016/06/04. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1085. PubMed PMID: 27257799.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Leonardo A Peyré-Tartaruga

9 Sep 2020

Does acute soccer heading cause an increase in plasma S100B? A randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-20-15329R1

Dear Dr. Kawata,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Leonardo A. Peyré-Tartaruga, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Leonardo A Peyré-Tartaruga

14 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-15329R1

Does acute soccer heading cause an increase in plasma S100B? A randomized controlled trial

Dear Dr. Kawata:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Leonardo A. Peyré-Tartaruga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (CSV)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES