MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089939236 · doi:10.1115/1.4048644

Assessment of Thorax Finite Element Model Response for Behind Armor Blunt Trauma Impact Loading Using an Epidemiological Database

2020· article· en· W3089939236 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research Laboratory
KeywordsArmourThorax (insect anatomy)Deformation (meteorology)Structural engineeringPoison controlFinite element methodDisplacement (psychology)Materials scienceEngineeringMedicineComposite materialAnatomyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonperforating ballistic impacts on thoracic armor can cause blunt injuries, known as behind-armor blunt trauma (BABT). To evaluate the potential for this injury, the back face deformation (BFD) imprinted into a clay backing is measured; however, the link between BFD and potential for injury is uncertain. Computational human body models (HBMs) have the potential to provide an improved understanding of BABT injury risk to inform armor design but require assessment with relevant loading scenarios. In this study, a methodology was developed to apply BABT loading to a computational thorax model, enhanced with refined finite element mesh and high-deformation rate mechanical properties. The model was assessed using an epidemiological BABT survivor database. BABT impact boundary conditions for 10 cases from the database were recreated using experimentally measured deformation for specific armor/projectile combinations, and applied to the thorax model using a novel prescribed displacement methodology. The computational thorax model demonstrated numerical stability under BABT impact conditions. The predicted number of rib fractures, the magnitude of pulmonary contusion, and injury rank, increased with armor BFD, back face velocity, and input energy to the thorax. In three of the 10 cases, the model overpredicted the number of rib fractures, attributed to impact location positional sensitivity and limited details from the database. The integration of an HBM with the BABT loading method predicted rib fractures and injury ranks that were in good agreement with available medical records, providing a potential tool for future armor evaluation and injury assessment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.282 · 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