ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Development of a Detailed Finite Element Model of the BIPED MK2 and Verification of Fidelity in Two Cases of Blunt Impact.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical surrogates of the human head are commonly used to model cranial impacts, assess helmet efficacy and assess likelihood of head injuries. The Brain Injury Protection Evaluation Device (BIPED mk2) is a head form that contains a brain simulant, cerebrospinal fluid layer (CSF), connective membranes, a skull and a skin layer, and can be configured to measure kinematics, pressures and strains. In design efforts to increase the biofidelity of surrogates, finite element models play a significant role in assessing design iterations that better mimic the biological response of the head during impact. This study aims to create a digital model of the BIPED mk2 and provide a robust comparison to experimental pressure and strain data, measured from specific impact scenarios. Kinematics from two separate frontal impact experiment campaigns were used to drive the BIPED mk2 finite element model. In the first experiments, brain pressure was extracted from in situ transducers. In the second, brain strain was extracted from post hoc imagery analysis. These pressure and strain data are the basis on which we verify the pressures and strains reported from the finite element model. Pressure and displacement time series responses were compared with experimental data using a CORrelation Analysis (CORA). The average CORA rating for pressure measurements taken at the front brain sensor was 0.701 using the kinematic model inputs and 0.851 for the force model inputs. For the rear brain sensor, the signals were deemed poor fits as the average CORA scores were 0.442 for the kinematic input and 0.255 for the force input. CORA ratings for the comparison of displacement data in the x (anterior-posterior) and z (superior-inferior) directions of the 18 nodes tested resulted in a range of values from 0.012 to 0.936. The results matched best in the interior but were poor along the perimeter of the brain depending on the location of the point in relation to the brain surface. We speculate the mixed findings are due in large part to the simplified CSF model, a potential focus for future model refinement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40057650What 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.