ArticleScientific reports2022
Crash test-based assessment of injury risks for adults and children when colliding with personal mobility devices and service robots.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Pedestrians' safety using projected time-to-collision to electric scooters.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autonomous mobility devices such as transport, cleaning, and delivery robots, hold a massive economic and social benefit. However, their deployment should not endanger bystanders, particularly vulnerable populations such as children and older adults who are inherently smaller and fragile. This study compared the risks faced by different pedestrian categories and determined risks through crash testing involving a service robot hitting an adult and a child dummy. Results of collisions at 3.1 m/s (11.1 km/h/6.9 mph) showed risks of serious head (14%), neck (20%), and chest (50%) injuries in children, and tibia fracture (33%) in adults. Furthermore, secondary impact analysis resulted in both populations at risk of severe head injuries, namely, from falling to the ground. Our data and simulations show mitigation strategies for reducing impact injury risks below 5% by either lowering the differential speed at impact below 1.5 m/s (5.4 km/h/3.3 mph) or through the usage of absorbent materials. The results presented herein may influence the design of controllers, sensing awareness, and assessment methods for robots and small vehicles standardization, as well as, policymaking and regulations for the speed, design, and usage of these devices in populated areas.
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.