A centric/non-centric impact protocol and finite element model methodology for the evaluation of American football helmets to evaluate risk of concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
American football reports high incidences of head injuries, in particular, concussion. Research has described concussion as primarily a rotation dominant injury affecting the diffuse areas of brain tissue. Current standards do not measure how helmets manage rotational acceleration or how acceleration loading curves influence brain deformation from an impact and thus are missing important information in terms of how concussions occur. The purpose of this study was to investigate a proposed three-dimensional impact protocol for use in evaluating football helmets. The dynamic responses resulting from centric and non-centric impact conditions were examined to ascertain the influence they have on brain deformations in different functional regions of the brain that are linked to concussive symptoms. A centric and non-centric protocol was used to impact an American football helmet; the resulting dynamic response data was used in conjunction with a three-dimensional finite element analysis of the human brain to calculate brain tissue deformation. The direction of impact created unique loading conditions, resulting in peaks in different regions of the brain associated with concussive symptoms. The linear and rotational accelerations were not predictive of the brain deformation metrics used in this study. In conclusion, the test protocol used in this study revealed that impact conditions influences the region of loading in functional regions of brain tissue that are associated with the symptoms of concussion. The protocol also demonstrated that using brain deformation metrics may be more appropriate when evaluating risk of concussion than using dynamic response data alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".