Near-Infrared Light on the Nose and Head: The Current Status of New Research to Protect the Brains of Football Players

What the players wear is another "head protection device"

American football, a sport of repeated intense collisions. When it comes to protecting a player's head, the first thing that comes to mind is likely a helmet.

However, in U.S. universities, attention is being drawn to a headset different from those used in competitions. It emits near-infrared rays onto the scalp and attaches a small device to the nose. The aim is not to physically prevent impacts but to work on the brain exposed to repeated impacts.

An article published by The New York Times on October 28, 2026, introduced how football players at Brigham Young University (BYU) are incorporating such devices into their recovery efforts.

This technology is called "photobiomodulation (PBM)." It is a method that attempts to influence biological responses with specific wavelengths of light, and its potential to mitigate the effects on the brain from sports is being researched.

However, at present, it cannot be concluded that "shining light will protect the brain."

At the center of this topic are promising initial studies and the issue of how to interpret them. There is a significant gap between having expectations and considering the effects as established.

CTE concerns are not just about major impacts

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE. The name has become more familiar in reports about sports with frequent contact and collisions.

CTE is a brain disease associated with long-term repetitive head impacts. Characteristic pathological changes, such as the accumulation of abnormal proteins, are observed in brain tissue.

What is often overlooked here is that the number of diagnosed concussions alone does not sufficiently capture the impacts to the head. There may be cases where the person does not feel clear symptoms despite having received an impact.

The fact that "they didn't fall" or "could continue the game" is merely an observation of that single impact. It is difficult to judge the accumulated burden from years of practice and games based solely on appearances at the time.

On the other hand, it is also inappropriate to conclude future CTE from a single concussion or occasional head bumps. There remain unexplained aspects of the conditions under which the disease occurs and why results differ even with similar impact experiences.

Neither downplaying the concerns nor predicting a disease future for all athletes is a scientific explanation.

The potential of near-infrared seen in a trial with 26 participants

One of the studies supporting interest in near-infrared is a randomized controlled trial involving 26 college football players.

The players were divided into 13 who used devices that actually emitted light and 13 who used devices that looked the same but did not emit therapeutic light. The intervention lasted 16 weeks, including preseason and regular season.

Researchers compared diffusion MRI indicators before and after the season. They investigated how indicators related to brain inflammation and subtle changes in nerve fibers changed throughout the competition period.

While multiple indicators increased in the control group, they remained relatively stable in the group that actually received the light, with some even decreasing. Researchers interpreted this as suggesting that PBM might suppress brain changes associated with repetitive impacts.

Can something happen to the brain just by shining light from the outside? Intuitively, it feels mysterious. However, a research introduction from the University of Utah explains that a small portion of the light can pass through the skull, and studies using cells and animals have examined its effects on inflammation-related responses.

It is precisely because of this background that research to confirm effects in humans is meaningful. However, the possibility of action and the confirmation of sufficient clinical effects are different matters.

"Changes in MRI" and "Preventing CTE" are not the same

There is a crucial distinction to be made when reading the results of this trial.

The study examined how MRI indicators changed before and after one season, not whether the players would develop CTE in the future.

Even if the changes on the images are small, how much they connect to cognitive function and quality of life decades later cannot be determined by this trial alone. In the first place, a definitive diagnosis of CTE still relies on postmortem examination of brain tissue.

Moreover, the scale of 26 people is small. The University of Utah's announcement also cites as a limitation that there were differences between groups in inflammation-related indicators before the intervention due to chance.

To verify the results, trials with larger groups and tracking over multiple seasons are needed. It is also necessary to question whether there are positive changes not only in images but also in memory, attention, and daily life functions.

Therefore, considering commercially available light irradiation devices as "CTE prevention devices" at this stage is a leap. It is also impossible to equate the conditions and devices used in the research with products generally sold.

The value of initial research lies not in providing material for rushing to conclusions but in specifically indicating what should be verified next.

What the estimate of "about 75%" means

Alongside research using light, a new estimate concerning CTE in former NFL players has also drawn significant attention.

The research team used information on 2,362 former NFL players who died between 2008 and 2023 and estimated the percentage with pathological findings of CTE at the time of death to be 74.5%.

This is not the result of directly examining everyone's brain.

There were 387 donated brains directly examined, of which 362 had pathological findings of CTE. However, players with memory or behavioral changes might have families more inclined to donate their brains for research. Examining only donated brains might yield a higher percentage than the overall population.

Therefore, researchers analyzed biases related to brain donation and added statistical corrections. The estimated value was about 75%.

It remains a heavy figure, but the target should not be overlooked. It is an estimate for "former NFL players who died within a certain period," not that "75% of players currently playing will develop CTE." It is also not a figure that can be directly applied to Japanese student athletes or those who only experienced the sport for a short time.

Furthermore, having pathological findings does not mean everyone will exhibit the same symptoms or develop dementia.

The research requires both not weakening the numbers and not overly broadening their meaning.

Voices on social media concerned about the future of the sport—debate over how numbers are conveyed

The recent estimate also sparked reactions on social media.

In an X post introduced by sports media PFSN, NFL writer John Frascella expressed surprise at the results, which could significantly change the debate surrounding the sport. Preston Guy also expressed concern about the major impact on sports.

Veteran journalist Ed Werder regards it as important knowledge related to the dangers of collision sports and the future of the NFL.

On the other hand, there were posts questioning how the research was introduced. Simply conveying "75%" without adequately explaining the target can make it seem applicable to all football players. However, there were also posts from critics who confused the percentage observed in donated brains with the corrected estimate.

Co-researcher Chris Nowinski explains that the estimated value is lower than the percentage in actually examined donated brains because the bias that symptoms in life lead to brain donation was considered.

These are some posts featured in reports and do not measure the overall approval or disapproval on social media. Also, the primary focus of reactions was the estimated prevalence, not the evaluation of the effects of near-infrared.

Nevertheless, it is evident that those with an attachment to the sport are seriously considering its future. The enjoyment of watching games and the concern for players' post-retirement lives coexist.

Seeking new treatments and reducing impacts

In the publicly available portion of The New York Times, in addition to near-infrared, multiple research directions are introduced, such as interventions involving the gut microbiome, vagus nerve stimulation, psychedelic experiences, and repurposing existing drugs that may reduce brain inflammation.

None of these should be read as meaning that their effects have been established simply because they are being researched.

What needs to be considered here is where to place new interventions in the safety measures of the sport if they become effective in the future.

Even if some of the effects of impacts can be mitigated, the impacts themselves will not disappear. If contact increases due to a sense of security from new technology, the benefits that should be gained might be lost. This is not a phenomenon proven by the current trial but a point of discussion when considering safety measures.

It is necessary to consider "how to reduce the burden received" along with "how to reduce the burden in the first place."

Because it is research to preserve the appeal of the sport, it should be connected to discussions about reviewing practice, rules, and the form of competition for developmental ages.

Questions of practice and development relevant to Japan

Reading this news in Japan might make it seem like a story from the unique world of the NFL. However, the question of how to handle repetitive head impacts also relates to contact sports in Japan.

However, the nature and frequency of impacts differ by sport. The estimates for former professional players in the U.S. cannot be directly applied to the dangers of other sports or school club activities in Japan.

What is useful is not the transplantation of numbers but the comparison to reduce risks.

In a study of 6- to 14-year-olds introduced by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), tackle football players experienced more head impacts in practice and games than flag football players. This is not a study comparing future CTE incidence rates, but it shows that exposure to impacts can be altered by the form of the sport.

There is room to consider whether contact is necessary for the purpose of practice, whether age-appropriate forms can be chosen, and whether there is an environment where discomfort can be easily reported in schools and clubs.

Rather than just waiting for the emergence of new medical devices, what can be changed in daily operations? This perspective becomes one way to connect research results to the field in Japan.

"Inability to make a definitive diagnosis" does not mean "nothing can be done"

The topic of CTE can also cause anxiety for those who have played contact sports in the past and their families.

However, just because there are memory lapses or mood changes does not mean it can be judged as CTE. Various causes can lead to similar symptoms.

The UK's public health institution, NHS, also recommends confirming with medical institutions because symptoms suggestive of CTE might be due to other diseases. While there is currently no treatment to cure CTE, there is support to alleviate symptoms and difficulties in daily life.

There is no need to conclude, "I used to play football, so there's nothing that can be done." Evaluating symptoms and finding problems that can be addressed is meaningful.

What the research on near-infrared indicates is not news that the problem has been solved. It shows that researchers are continuously seeking concrete means to protect brain health, which has not been sufficiently safeguarded until now.

The safety of the sport cannot be measured solely by whether a game can be completed. When considering what kind of life can be led after retirement, the meaning of the phrase "protecting the sport" also changes.

Sources and References

1. The New York Times: Use of near-infrared devices at BYU and research trends on CTE
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/28/science/cte-nfl-football-brain-safety.html

2. Journal of Neurotrauma/PubMed: Randomized controlled trial of PBM involving 26 college football players. Study design, MRI indicators, and results.
   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42300020/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

3. University of Utah: Explanation of near-infrared research. Background on intervention methods and effects, limitations of small-scale trials, and initial group differences.
   https://attheu.utah.edu/health-medicine/red-light-therapy-shows-promise-for-protecting-football-players-brains/@theU

4. Mass General Brigham: Announcement of research estimating pathological findings of CTE in 74.5% of deceased former NFL players. Subject, correction of bias in donated brains, and limitations in application to current players.
   https://news.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/former-nfl-players-who-died-cte-ratesnews.massgeneralbrigham.org

5. PFSN: Introduction of X posts following the research announcement. Reactions from journalists and researchers, and discussions on how numbers are perceived. Indirect confirmation of posts by the same article.
   https://www.profootballnetwork.com/concerning-new-study-cte-former-players/profootballnetwork.com

6. CDC: Basic information on repetitive head impacts and CTE. Impacts without symptoms, diagnostic limitations, and comparison of tackle and flag formats for developmental ages.
   https://www.cdc.gov/traumatic-brain-injury/about/repeated-head-impacts.htmlCDC

7. NHS: Symptoms of CTE, distinction from other diseases, diagnosis, treatment, and life support.
   https://www.nhs.uk/