Xianghao Zhan , Zhou Zhou , Yuzhe Liu , Nicholas J. Cecchi , Marzieh Hajiahamemar , Michael M. Zeineh , Gerald A. Grant , David Camarillo
{"title":"利用体内和实验室数据集分析脑外伤时两种最大主应变率计算方法的差异。","authors":"Xianghao Zhan , Zhou Zhou , Yuzhe Liu , Nicholas J. Cecchi , Marzieh Hajiahamemar , Michael M. Zeineh , Gerald A. Grant , David Camarillo","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Brain deformation caused by a head impact leads to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The maximum principal strain (MPS) was used to measure the extent of brain deformation and predict injury, and the recent evidence has indicated that incorporating the maximum principal strain rate (MPSR) and the product of MPS and MPSR, denoted as MPS × SR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one is to use the time derivative of MPS (MPSR<sub>1</sub>), and another is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor (MPSR<sub>2</sub>). Both MPSR<sub>1</sub> and MPSR<sub>2</sub> have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we compared them across eight in-vivo and one in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> was slightly larger than 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> and 95MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 4.85 % larger than 95MPS × SR<sub>2</sub> in average. Across every element in all head impacts, the average MPSR<sub>1</sub> was 12.73 % smaller than MPSR<sub>2</sub>, and MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 11.95 % smaller than MPS × SR<sub>2</sub>. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI using MPSR (or MPS × SR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPS × SR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> with value from 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> to determine if the impact is injurious) was investigated, and the resulting false rates were found to be around 1 %. The evidence suggested that these two methodologies were not significantly different in detecting TBI.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 112456"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences between two maximal principal strain rate calculation schemes in traumatic brain analysis with in-vivo and in-silico datasets\",\"authors\":\"Xianghao Zhan , Zhou Zhou , Yuzhe Liu , Nicholas J. Cecchi , Marzieh Hajiahamemar , Michael M. Zeineh , Gerald A. Grant , David Camarillo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Brain deformation caused by a head impact leads to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The maximum principal strain (MPS) was used to measure the extent of brain deformation and predict injury, and the recent evidence has indicated that incorporating the maximum principal strain rate (MPSR) and the product of MPS and MPSR, denoted as MPS × SR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one is to use the time derivative of MPS (MPSR<sub>1</sub>), and another is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor (MPSR<sub>2</sub>). Both MPSR<sub>1</sub> and MPSR<sub>2</sub> have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we compared them across eight in-vivo and one in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> was slightly larger than 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> and 95MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 4.85 % larger than 95MPS × SR<sub>2</sub> in average. Across every element in all head impacts, the average MPSR<sub>1</sub> was 12.73 % smaller than MPSR<sub>2</sub>, and MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 11.95 % smaller than MPS × SR<sub>2</sub>. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI using MPSR (or MPS × SR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPS × SR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> with value from 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> to determine if the impact is injurious) was investigated, and the resulting false rates were found to be around 1 %. The evidence suggested that these two methodologies were not significantly different in detecting TBI.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024005359\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024005359","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences between two maximal principal strain rate calculation schemes in traumatic brain analysis with in-vivo and in-silico datasets
Brain deformation caused by a head impact leads to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The maximum principal strain (MPS) was used to measure the extent of brain deformation and predict injury, and the recent evidence has indicated that incorporating the maximum principal strain rate (MPSR) and the product of MPS and MPSR, denoted as MPS × SR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one is to use the time derivative of MPS (MPSR1), and another is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor (MPSR2). Both MPSR1 and MPSR2 have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we compared them across eight in-vivo and one in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR1 was slightly larger than 95MPSR2 and 95MPS × SR1 was 4.85 % larger than 95MPS × SR2 in average. Across every element in all head impacts, the average MPSR1 was 12.73 % smaller than MPSR2, and MPS × SR1 was 11.95 % smaller than MPS × SR2. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI using MPSR (or MPS × SR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPS × SR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR1 with value from 95MPSR2 to determine if the impact is injurious) was investigated, and the resulting false rates were found to be around 1 %. The evidence suggested that these two methodologies were not significantly different in detecting TBI.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.