ArticleFrontiers in neurology2020
Role of Interfacial Conditions on Blast Overpressure Propagation Into the Brain.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Blast-Induced Traumatic Brain Injury as a Risk Factor for (Cerebro)vascular Disorder: Clinical Manifestations, Blast Physics, Biomechanics, Pathobiology, and Critical Gaps.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The complex interfacial condition between the human brain and the skull has been difficult to emulate in a surrogate system. Surrogate head models have typically been built using a homogeneous viscoelastic material to represent the brain, but the effect of different interfacial conditions between the brain and the skull on pressure transduction into the brain during blast has not been studied. In the present work, three interfacial conditions were generated in physical surrogate human head models. The first surrogate consisted of a gel brain separated from the skull by a layer of saline solution similar in thickness to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) layer in the human head: the fluid interface head model. The second surrogate head had the entire cranial cavity filled with the gel: the fixed interface head model. The third surrogate head contained a space-filling gel brain wrapped in a thin plastic film: the stick-slip interface head model. The human head surrogates were evaluated in a series of frontal blast tests to characterize the effect of skull-brain interfacial conditions on overpressure propagation into the gel brains. The fixed and the stick-slip interface head models showed nearly equal peak brain overpressures. In contrast, the fluid interface head model had much higher in-brain peak overpressures than the other two models, thus representing the largest transmission of forces into the gel brain. Given that the elevated peak overpressures occurred only in the fluid interface head model, the presence of the saline layer is likely responsible for this increase. This phenomenon is hypothesized to be attributed to the incompressibility of the saline and/or the impedance differences between the materials. The fixed interface head model showed pronounced high frequency energy content relative to the other two models, implying that the fluid and the stick-slip conditions provided better dampening. The cumulative impulse energy entering the three brain models were similar, suggesting that the interface conditions do not affect the total energy transmission over the positive phase duration of a blast event. This study shows that the fidelity of the surrogate human head models would improve with a CSF-emulating liquid layer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.