THOR-AV第50百分位男性假人损伤风险函数的研究。

Q2 Medicine
Z Jerry Wang, George Hu
{"title":"THOR-AV第50百分位男性假人损伤风险函数的研究。","authors":"Z Jerry Wang, George Hu","doi":"10.4271/2025-22-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research investigated injury risk functions (IRF) for the THOR-AV 50th percentile male dummy in accordance with ISO TS18506, focusing on areas with design changes. The IRF development utilized a combination of physical tests and finite element (FE) model simulations. For certain postmortem human subject test cases lacking physical dummy tests, the validated Humanetics THOR-AV FE model (v0.7.2) was used to quickly generate data, with the understanding that final IRFs based on full physical test data might offer greater accuracy. Log-logistic, log-normal, and Weibull survival functions were fitted with 95% confidence intervals. The Akaike Information Criterion, Goodman-Kruskal-Gamma, Area under the Curve of Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Quantile-Quantile plot were employed to assess the prediction strength and relative quality of the final IRF selections. Among the three survival distributions, the Weibull distribution provided the best fit. The lumbar Fz was identified as the best indicator for lumbar spine injury, followed by Lij. The Fz injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 2170N, 3560N, and 4856N for MAIS2+, respectively. The Lij injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 0.44, 0.65, and 0.79 for MAIS2+, respectively. Abdomen pressure from APTS sensors was found to be a weak indicator for abdomen injury prediction, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 128, 209, and 268 kPa for MAIS2+, respectively. The total ASIS force from the left and right ASIS load cells was a better injury predictor than the maximum ASIS load from the individual load cells, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 542, 1872, and 3522 Newtons for MAIS2+, respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":35289,"journal":{"name":"Stapp car crash journal","volume":"69 1","pages":"82-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation of Injury Risk Functions of THOR-AV 50th Percentile Male Dummy.\",\"authors\":\"Z Jerry Wang, George Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.4271/2025-22-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This research investigated injury risk functions (IRF) for the THOR-AV 50th percentile male dummy in accordance with ISO TS18506, focusing on areas with design changes. The IRF development utilized a combination of physical tests and finite element (FE) model simulations. For certain postmortem human subject test cases lacking physical dummy tests, the validated Humanetics THOR-AV FE model (v0.7.2) was used to quickly generate data, with the understanding that final IRFs based on full physical test data might offer greater accuracy. Log-logistic, log-normal, and Weibull survival functions were fitted with 95% confidence intervals. The Akaike Information Criterion, Goodman-Kruskal-Gamma, Area under the Curve of Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Quantile-Quantile plot were employed to assess the prediction strength and relative quality of the final IRF selections. Among the three survival distributions, the Weibull distribution provided the best fit. The lumbar Fz was identified as the best indicator for lumbar spine injury, followed by Lij. The Fz injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 2170N, 3560N, and 4856N for MAIS2+, respectively. The Lij injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 0.44, 0.65, and 0.79 for MAIS2+, respectively. Abdomen pressure from APTS sensors was found to be a weak indicator for abdomen injury prediction, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 128, 209, and 268 kPa for MAIS2+, respectively. The total ASIS force from the left and right ASIS load cells was a better injury predictor than the maximum ASIS load from the individual load cells, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 542, 1872, and 3522 Newtons for MAIS2+, respectively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"82-113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4271/2025-22-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stapp car crash journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4271/2025-22-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究根据ISO TS18506标准调查了THOR-AV第50百分位男性假人的伤害风险函数(IRF),重点研究了设计变更的区域。IRF的开发结合了物理测试和有限元(FE)模型模拟。对于缺乏物理假人测试的某些死后人体受试者测试用例,使用经过验证的Humanetics THOR-AV FE模型(v0.7.2)来快速生成数据,并了解基于完整物理测试数据的最终irf可能会提供更高的准确性。对数逻辑、对数正态和威布尔生存函数用95%置信区间拟合。采用Akaike信息标准、Goodman-Kruskal-Gamma、受试者工作特征曲线下面积和分位数-分位数图来评估最终IRF选择的预测强度和相对质量。在三种生存分布中,威布尔分布的拟合效果最好。腰椎Fz被认为是腰椎损伤的最佳指标,其次是Lij。MAIS2+在5%、25%和50%概率下的Fz损伤风险值分别为2170N、3560N和4856N。MAIS2+在5%、25%和50%概率下的Lij损伤风险值分别为0.44、0.65和0.79。来自APTS传感器的腹部压力是预测腹部损伤的弱指标,MAIS2+在5%、25%和50%概率下的损伤风险值分别为128、209和268 kPa。MAIS2+的损伤风险值在5%、25%和50%概率下分别为542、1872和3522牛顿,来自左右两个ASIS测压元件的总ASIS力比单个测压元件的最大ASIS力更能预测损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigation of Injury Risk Functions of THOR-AV 50th Percentile Male Dummy.

This research investigated injury risk functions (IRF) for the THOR-AV 50th percentile male dummy in accordance with ISO TS18506, focusing on areas with design changes. The IRF development utilized a combination of physical tests and finite element (FE) model simulations. For certain postmortem human subject test cases lacking physical dummy tests, the validated Humanetics THOR-AV FE model (v0.7.2) was used to quickly generate data, with the understanding that final IRFs based on full physical test data might offer greater accuracy. Log-logistic, log-normal, and Weibull survival functions were fitted with 95% confidence intervals. The Akaike Information Criterion, Goodman-Kruskal-Gamma, Area under the Curve of Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Quantile-Quantile plot were employed to assess the prediction strength and relative quality of the final IRF selections. Among the three survival distributions, the Weibull distribution provided the best fit. The lumbar Fz was identified as the best indicator for lumbar spine injury, followed by Lij. The Fz injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 2170N, 3560N, and 4856N for MAIS2+, respectively. The Lij injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities are 0.44, 0.65, and 0.79 for MAIS2+, respectively. Abdomen pressure from APTS sensors was found to be a weak indicator for abdomen injury prediction, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 128, 209, and 268 kPa for MAIS2+, respectively. The total ASIS force from the left and right ASIS load cells was a better injury predictor than the maximum ASIS load from the individual load cells, with injury risk values at 5%, 25%, and 50% probabilities being 542, 1872, and 3522 Newtons for MAIS2+, respectively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Stapp car crash journal
Stapp car crash journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信