MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739798843 · doi:10.1177/1460408617721564

A biomechanical analysis of traumatic brain injury for slips and falls from height

2017· article· en· W2739798843 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Post, Karen Taylor, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Susan Brien, Michael D. Cusimano, Shawn Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUnconsciousnessMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationKinematicsPoison controlTraumatic brain injuryHead injuryFalling (accident)Injury preventionAngular accelerationSlippingAccelerationPhysical therapySurgeryMathematicsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Falls are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in society, particularly among the aged and young. There has been research to describe the epidemiology of these types of events, but to date there has been few correlations of clinical brain injury outcomes and metrics used in biomechanical research; parameters often used to help develop protective devices and environments. The purpose of this research was to examine the kinematic characteristics of falls from standing and higher heights in an effort to understand how clinical brain injury is predicted by biomechanical injury metrics. Methods Computer simulations of nine traumatic brain injury events from falling were conducted to determine the biomechanical metrics associated with each injury case. Results Many of the impacts were to the occipital region of the head, as would be expected from backward falls or from slipping from ladders. These falls resulted in low rotational acceleration values and high linear accelerations, suggesting linear acceleration may be an important characteristic of this injury mechanism. In addition, even though each case resulted in severe head injury, the HIC 15 (Head Injury Criterion) values did not consistently predict injury when the kinematic output was lower than 300 g. This result suggests that HIC 15 may have limited value as a predictor for high energy short duration direct impacts to the head. The results supported a relationship between fall height and duration of loss of consciousness, with the higher fall heights producing longer times of unconsciousness. Conclusion Linear acceleration may be the metric that should be focused on to develop further strategies to protect against severe TBI for fall cases similar to those in this research. In addition, the HIC 15 may not be suitable as a predictive metric for TBI and future development of protective devices for the prevention of head injury should take this into account.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraumaSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207