MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037411825 · doi:10.1177/1754337120932016

The relationship between directional components of dynamic response and maximum principal strain for impacts to an American football helmet

2020· article· en· W3037411825 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Taylor, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Andrew Post, Michael D. Gilchrist

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsImpactOntario Neurotrauma FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationPrincipal component analysisStrain (injury)Angular accelerationFootballPrincipal axis theoremHead (geology)Coordinate systemConcussionPoison controlSimulationComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeometryClassical mechanicsInjury preventionMedicineAnatomyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impact parameters used to design the American football helmet and the parameters associated with mechanisms of concussive injury are not consistent. Head impacts resulting in concussive injury in football are characterized as events creating rotational motion of the head that generate brain tissue strain. The extent of tissue strain influences the resulting severity of injury. Helmet technology aimed to decrease brain tissue strain by reducing the extent of brain motion could help reduce injury risk. Current helmet performance and evaluation measures, such as peak resultant of linear and rotational acceleration, do not fully define directional brain motion and therefore cannot provide sufficient information for this type of improvement. This study was conducted to determine whether coordinate components (X, Y, and Z) of linear and rotational acceleration would correlate with maximum principal strain, a common measure of brain injury risk. Coordinate components define directional motion of the head and offer a specific design parameter more easily reduced using engineered structures than peak resultant acceleration. In addition to coordinate components, this study introduces the dominant component, defined as the coordinate component with the highest contribution to the resultant acceleration, for additional evaluation. The results show that the relationship between the X, Y, and Z coordinate components of acceleration and maximum principal strain is location- and direction-dependent. The study indicates a strong relationship between the peak resultant and dominant components of acceleration to maximum principal strain. Because the dominant component of acceleration accounts for direction and location, identifying the relationship between dominant acceleration and maximum principal strain demonstrates the potential use of this metric to improve future helmet innovation aimed at reducing tissue strain.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207