MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999760709 · doi:10.1115/imece2013-63053

Modelling and Analysis of the Effect of Angular Velocity and Acceleration on Brain Strain Field in Traumatic Brain Injury

2013· article· en· W1999760709 on OpenAlexaff
Hesam Hoursan, Mohammad Taghi Ahmadian, Ahmad Barari, Hamid Naghibi Beidokhti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngular accelerationAccelerationTraumatic brain injurySkullBrain traumaMeningesHead (geology)Head traumaField (mathematics)Process (computing)Human headBiomedical engineeringSimulationMedicineFinite element methodComputer sciencePhysicsSurgeryStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPathologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has long been known as one of the most anonymous reasons for death around the world. A presentation of a model of what happens in the process has been under study for many years; and yet it remains a question due to physiological, geometrical and computational complications. Although the facilities for soft tissue modeling have improved and the precise CT-imaging of human head has revealed novel details of brain, skull and the interface (the meninges), a comprehensive FEM model of TBI is still being studied. This study aims to present an optimized model of human head including the brain, skull, and the meninges after a comprehensive study of the previous models. The model is then used to investigate the effects of various sudden velocity-acceleration impulses on the strain field of the brain by using FE method. Next, the results are summed up and compared with an existing criterion on damage threshold in the brain during trauma. To reach this aim, a full geometrical model of a 30-year-old patient’s head has been generated from CT-scan and MR data. The model has been exposed to 20 angular velocity-acceleration pulses. Subsequently, the changes in the strain field have been compared with the results obtained in the previous studies yielding acceptable accordance with a major previous criterion. The results also show that certain criteria can be generated on the threshold of damage in the brain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207