ArticleScientific reports2023
Modelling physical contacts to evaluate the individual risk in a dense crowd.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tumble and stampede in a dense crowd may be caused by irrational behaviours of individuals and always troubles the safety management of crowd activities. Risk evaluation based on pedestrian dynamical models can be regarded as an effective method of preventing crowd disasters. Here, a method depending on a combination of collision impulses and pushing forces was used to model the physical contacts between individuals in a dense crowd, by which the acceleration error during physical contacts caused by a traditional dynamical equation can be avoided. The human domino effect in a dense crowd could be successfully reproduced, and the crushing and trampling risk of a microscopic individual in a crowd could be quantitatively evaluated separately. This method provides a more reliable and integral data foundation for evaluating individual risk that shows better portability and repeatability than macroscopic crowd risk evaluation methods and will also be conducive to preventing crowd disasters.
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.