MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750881553 · doi:10.7205/milmed-d-16-00358

The Effect of Anthropomorphic Test Device Lower Leg Surrogate Selection on Impact Mitigating System Evaluation in Low- and High-Rate Loading Conditions

2017· article· en· W2750881553 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl E. Quenneville, Ed Fournier, Nicholas Shewchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsAptose Biosciences (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTibiaStructural engineeringLower bodyOrthodonticsMathematicsMedicineSurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The lower legs are at risk of substantial injury during events such as frontal automotive crashes and antivehicular mine blasts. Loading to occupants can be assessed using an instrumented anthropomorphic test device (ATD), whose measurements can be compared to established injury criteria. NATO's AEP-55 STANAG 4569 recognizes two surrogates for lower leg injury assessments from impacts with intruding floor pans resulting from underbelly blast loads; (1) the rigid Hybrid III instrumented lower leg, and; (2) the compliant MILitary Lower eXtremity (MIL-LX). The established injury criterion for the Hybrid III leg specifies a maximum lower tibia compressive load of 5.4 kN, whereas the MIL-LX limit is 2.6 kN measured at the upper tibia for similar injury severity levels. The difference in compliance between the two legs could affect the evaluation of protection levels, resulting in an over- or under-estimation of the force attenuation of energy attenuating (EA) floor mats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The responses of the two lower leg surrogates were evaluated at impact velocities up to 12 m/s, representing floor intrusions during antivehicle mine blasts. An air cannon was used to accelerate a rigid or padded floor plate into the sole of the surrogate lower legs, loading them axially, in order to assess the protective capability of commercial EA floor mats. The peak load from the lower and upper load cells in the Hybrid III and MIL-LX legs were compared to identify at what point their respective injury criteria would be exceeded in both the padded and unpadded conditions. RESULTS: Comparisons of the surrogate legs' responses resulted in different evaluations of risk, with the Hybrid III leg exceeding its limit at an impact speed of 6.0 m/s, and the MIL-LX exceeding its limit at 5.5 m/s (for tests including an EA product). Furthermore, the inclusion of an EA mat had a greater relative protective effect on the Hybrid III than the MIL-LX leg, with padding reducing the force to 17 to 34% of the unpadded condition for the Hybrid III, versus 67 to 89% of the unpadded condition for the MIL-LX. The load reduction was found to be velocity dependent for both surrogates. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the two surrogates are not equivalent in their assessment of protective capability. Therefore, the selection of ATD leg for testing of EA mats (and other protective devices) will influence the evaluation of these systems, and more robust metrics are required to identify which is the most appropriate surrogate for evaluating injury to the lower limb.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207