MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165635371 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2021.1918685

Importance of passive muscle, skin, and adipose tissue mechanical properties on head and neck response in rear impacts assessed with a finite element model

2021· article· en· W3165635371 on OpenAlexaff
Donata Gierczycka, Aleksander Rycman, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodHead (geology)Head and neckAdipose tissueMechatronicsMedicineStructural engineeringBiomedical engineeringEngineeringAnatomyMechanical engineeringSurgeryGeologyInternal medicineElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to improve head-neck kinematic predictions of a contemporary finite element (FE) head-neck model, assessed in rear impact scenarios (3-10 g), by including an accurate representation of the skin, adipose tissue, and passive muscle mechanical properties. The soft tissues of the neck have a substantial contribution to kinematic response, with the contribution being inversely proportional to the impact severity. Thus accurate representation of these passive tissues is critical for the assessment of kinematic response and the potential for crash induced injuries. Contemporary Human Body Models (HBMs) often incorporate overly stiff mechanical properties of passive tissues for numerical stability, which can affect the predicted kinematic response of the head and neck. METHODS: Soft tissue material properties including non-linearity, compression-tension asymmetry, and viscoelasticity were implemented in constitutive models for the skin, adipose, and passive muscle tissues, based on experimental data in the literature. A quasi-linear viscoelastic formulation was proposed for the skin, while a phenomenological hyper-viscoelastic model was used for the passive muscle and adipose tissues. A head-neck model extracted from a contemporary FE HBM was updated to include the new tissue models and assessed using head rotation angle for rear impact scenarios (3 g, 7 g, and 10 g peak accelerations), and compared to postmortem human surrogate (PMHS) data for 7 g impacts. RESULTS: The head rotation angle increased with the new material models for all three rear impact cases: (3 g: +43%, 7 g: +52%, 10 g: +71%), relative to the original model. The increase in head rotation was primarily attributed to the improved skin model, with the passive muscle being a secondary contributor to the increase in response. A 52% increase in head rotation for the 7 g impact improved the model response with respect to PMHS data, placing it closer to the experimental average, compared to the original model. CONCLUSIONS: The improved skin, adipose tissue, and passive muscle material model properties, based on published experimental data, increased the neck compliance in rear impact, with improved correspondence to published PMHS test data for medium severity impacts. Future studies will investigate the coupled effect of passive and active muscle tissue for low severity impacts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207