MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The influence of headform orientation and flooring systems on impact dynamics during simulated fall-related head impacts

2011· article· en· W2120641581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHead (geology)Environmental scienceStructural engineeringPoison controlEngineeringGeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel compliant flooring systems are a promising approach for reducing fall-related injuries in seniors, as they may provide up to 50% attenuation in peak force during simulated hip impacts while eliciting only minimal influences on balance. This study aimed to determine the protective capacity of novel compliant floors during simulated 'high severity' head impacts compared to common flooring systems. A headform was impacted onto a common Commercial-Carpet at 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 m/s in front, back, and side orientations using a mechanical drop tower. Peak impact force applied to the headform (F(max)), peak linear acceleration of the headform (g(max)) and Head Injury Criterion (HIC) were determined. For the 3.5 m/s trials, backwards-oriented impacts were associated with the highest F(max) and HIC values (p<0.001); accordingly, this head orientation was used to complete additional trials on three common floors (Resilient Rubber, Residential-Loop Carpet, Berber Carpet) and six novel compliant floors at each impact velocity. ANOVAs indicated that flooring type was associated with all parameters at each impact velocity (p<0.001). Compared to impacts on the Commercial Carpet, Dunnett's post hoc indicated all variables were smaller (25-80%) for the novel compliant floors (p<0.001), but larger for Resilient Rubber (31-159%, p<0.01). This study demonstrates that during 'high severity' simulated impacts, novel compliant floors can substantially reduce the forces and accelerations applied to a headform compared to common floors including carpet and resilient rubber. In combination with reports of minimal balance impairments, these findings support the promise of novel compliant floors as a biomechanically effective strategy for reducing fall-related injuries including traumatic brain injuries and skull fractures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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