Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28271364›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2017

Does preliminary optimisation of an anatomically correct skull-brain model using simple simulants produce clinically realistic ballistic injury fracture patterns?

P F Mahoney, D J Carr, R J Delaney, N Hunt, S Harrison, J Breeze, I Gibb

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Projectile deformation on human bone and on a polyurethane simulant.International journal of legal medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The ballistic performance of bone when impacted by fragments.International journal of legal medicine · 2020
    Article
  9. Interpol review of forensic firearm examination 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P F MahoneyRoyal Centre for Defence Medicine, ICT Centre, Research Park, Birmingham, B15 2SQ, UK. p.f.mahoney@cranfield.ac.uk.
D J CarrCentre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK.
R J DelaneySouth West Forensic Pathology Group Practice, PO Box 388, Bristol, BS9 0DB, UK.
N HuntForensic Pathology Services, Grove Technology Park, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 9FA, UK.
S HarrisonAcademic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, RCDM, Birmingham, UK.
J BreezeAcademic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, RCDM, Birmingham, UK.
I GibbX-ray Department, Medical Centre, HMS Nelson, HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 3HH, UK.
Birmingham Research Park · GBDefence Academy of the United Kingdom · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ballistic head injury remains a significant threat to military personnel. Studying such injuries requires a model that can be used with a military helmet. This paper describes further work on a skull-brain model using skulls made from three different polyurethane plastics and a series of skull 'fills' to simulate brain (3, 5, 7 and 10% gelatine by mass and PermaGel™). The models were subjected to ballistic impact from 7.62 × 39 mm mild steel core bullets. The first part of the work compares the different polyurethanes (mean bullet muzzle velocity of 708 m/s), and the second part compares the different fills (mean bullet muzzle velocity of 680 m/s). The impact events were filmed using high speed cameras. The resulting fracture patterns in the skulls were reviewed and scored by five clinicians experienced in assessing penetrating head injury. In over half of the models, one or more assessors felt aspects of the fracture pattern were close to real injury. Limitations of the model include the skull being manufactured in two parts and the lack of a realistic skin layer. Further work is ongoing to address these.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalForensic BallisticsGelatinGelsHead Injuries, PenetratingHumansMaterials TestingPolyurethanesSkull FracturesWounds, GunshotGelatinGelsPolyurethanes7.62 × 39 mm bulletAK47AssessmentHeadMilitary helmet

Identifiers

PMID28271364
PMCPMC5491591
OpenAlexW2592801853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.