MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146261018 · doi:10.1115/1.4050752

Evaluation of the Kinematic Biofidelity and Inter-Test Repeatability of Global Accelerations and Brain Parenchyma Pressure for a Head–Brain Physical Model

2021· article· en· W3146261018 on OpenAlexaff
Yizhao Li, Simon Ouellet, Albert H. Vette, Don Raboud, Ashton Martin, Christopher R. Dennison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybrid IIIKinematicsRepeatabilityHead (geology)Cadaveric spasmAccelerationBiomechanicsSimulationAccelerometerPoison controlComputer scienceGeologyMathematicsPhysicsSurgeryStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Head surrogates are widely used in biomechanical research and headgear assessment. They are designed to approximate the inertial and mechanical properties of the head and are instrumented to measure global head kinematics. Due to the recent interest in studying disruption to the brain, some head models include internal fluid layers and brain tissue, and instrumentation to measure head intracranial biomechanics. However, it is unknown whether such models exhibit realistic human responses. Therefore, this study aims to assess the biofidelity and repeatability of a head model, the Blast Injury Protection Evaluation Device (BIPED), that can measure both global head kinematics and intraparenchymal pressure (IPP) for application in blunt impact, a common loading scenario in civilian life. Drop tests were conducted with the BIPED and the widely used Hybrid III headform. BIPED measures were compared to the Hybrid III data and published cadaveric data, and the biofidelity level of the global linear acceleration was quantified using CORrelation and Analysis (CORA) ratings. The repeatability of the acceleration and IPP measurements in multiple impact scenarios was evaluated via the coefficient of variation (COV) of the magnitudes and pulse durations. BIPED acceleration peaks were generally not significantly different from cadaver and Hybrid III data. The CORA ratings for the BIPED and Hybrid III accelerations ranged from 0.50 to 0.61 and 0.51 to 0.77, respectively. The COVs of acceleration and IPP were generally below 10%. This study is an important step toward a biofidelic head surrogate measuring both global kinematics and IPP in blunt impact.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207