PONE-D-19-34596

Sleep, regional grey matter volumes, and psychological functioning in adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lapidaire,

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.

Although this manuscript is generally well-written and technically sound, it has several methodological issues, particularly for the statistical analysis, that should be clearly resolved.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 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,

Kyoung-Sae Na, M.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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [IMAGEN consortium]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Yes

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: Although this study was not well controlled as all sleep characteristics were obtained by self-report, the research question is interesting and important. Generally, the authors found that the delayed weekend wake-up time is associated with the reduced regional GMV, and the psychological functioning as well. The findings can provide some insights in adolescents’ sleep habit. However, I have some concerns of the analyses and results that will need to be addressed or clarified before it can be published.

Major concerns:

1. For the whole brain analyses (i.e. Figure 1, Table 2), it was reported that the threshold is Pfwe < 0.05, but was it the whole-brain level multiple comparison correction or just cluster-level? If it is cluster-level, what is the whole brain threshold. Please clarify.

2. No Figure caption of Figure 1. And why do not you present the whole brain correlation results between variability wake-time and Amygdala, Hippocampus?

3. I am a little confused that you applied different approaches to explore the GMV and wakeup-time and the psychological functioning. I understand you have hypotheses in those regions (i.e. hippocampus, amygdala, mPFC). But since you found the correlation between the wakeup-time and regional GMV in those regions at the whole-brain level, why didn’t you apply the same approach to explore the relationship between the GMV and the psychological functioning, especially you found the correlation between wake-time and the functioning.

4. According to your method, you did the ROI approach to explore the GMV and psychological functioning, and for the mPFC, you defined the ROI based on your previous paper, the coordinate is [-2, 34 ,-14]. However, when you reported the correlation results in Table4, apparently ,the coordinate is not the one you pre-defined. Have you applied whole-brain analyses here? I am really confused about it. Refer to the comment above, this analysis and results need be addressed or clarified.

5. Sleep debt is an important factor. Although you mentioned it as a limitation that you did not investigate it. I am curious what prevent you from exploring it? Since it will make the results stronger.

6. For the causal mediation analyses, it is interesting. But it could be more clear if you can present the mediation figures with all variables. Also, I cannot see any causal direction from the result, and you did not discuss this result at all.

Minor issues:

7. The concepts throughout the manuscripts are inconsistent and not clear. Is the WE delay in wake-up time in the abstract the same thing as variability of wake-up time in Table 2?

8. In the Sleep assessments, it says “ WE delay in sleep timing (“social jet lag”) and weekly sleep debt was defined as the difference between weekday and weekend in sleep times and time in bed.” What is sleeping timing & sleep times here? Is the sleep onset or time go to bed?

9. The first sentence in the 4th paragraph of statistical analyses section is very confused. “In addition, it was examined whether the sleep times that were significant in the ROI VBM analyses were correlated with psychological functioning.” I do not understand what analyses you’ve done here. And I do not think you have done any analyses about “sleep times” in the current manuscript?

10. The title is too broad that you say sleep, it is really just about WE wake-up time in the current study.

Reviewer #2: Title: Sleep, regional grey matter volumes, and psychological functioning in adolescent

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-19-34596

This manuscript deals with an interesting topic and is well written. I expect that if this manuscript is being published as an article in the PLOS ONE, it will draw a lot of attention from psychiatrists.

Although this study has several limitations (e.g. the cross-sectional nature, the use of a self-report sleep scale instead of an objective measure for sleep), the authors addressed these limitations well. Also, the authors tried to minimize potential confounding factors such as developmental effect or gender effect through the use of statistical adjustment or subgroup analysis.

Minor concerns

1. Was there any interaction effect between gender and sleep-related variables or gender and psychological functioning scores? Please present it in the result section if there was any (Line 252-255).

2. Please provide explanations for acronyms when first presented in the text (e.g., line 115)

3. Please provide p values throughout the text.

4. Please add an explanation for the acronym SDQ as a footnote in the tables (table 1, 3 and 4).

**********

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: Yes: Min-Hyeon Park

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-34596.docx

Irregular sleep habits, regional grey matter volumes, and psychological functioning in adolescents

PONE-D-19-34596R1

Dear Dr. Martinot,

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,

Kyoung-Sae Na, M.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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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

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: Yes

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: Thank you for considering and addressing all comments. The authors have answered all my questions well. The current manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer #2: The authors have systematically addressed or clarified my major concerns. Moreover, the manuscript is clear. The authors have answered the suggestions of the reviewers point by point. The revised version is much better. I recommend acceptance.

**********

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: Yes: Min-Hyeon Park