ArticleScientific reports2025
Superior linear and comparable rotational protection of an air-filled helmet versus foam helmets.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Air-filled chambers offer a promising approach for designing lightweight and portable bicycle helmets, yet their effectiveness in real-world cycling accidents, particularly under oblique impacts, remains unexplored. Here, for the first time, we evaluated the brain injury mitigation performance of a commercially available air-filled helmet, Ventete aH-1, under oblique impacts, and compared it with three conventional cycle helmets, ranking high, middle and low in a recent study of 30 cycle helmets. Helmets were fitted to a new headform with more biofidelic physical properties than other existing headforms, allowing for more accurate measurements of linear and rotational motion during impacts. The helmeted headform was subjected to impacts to the front, front-side, side and rear against a 45° anvil at 6.5 m/s. The risk of linear and rotational injuries was calculated using risk functions based on PLA (peak linear acceleration) and BrIC (brain injury criterion) and exposure weighting. The PLA and linear risk were lower for the air-filled helmet than the EPS helmets in all impact locations. The air-filled helmet showed a 44% reduction in overall linear brain injury risk compared to the best-performing EPS helmet, attributed to its nearly twice as long impact duration. The air-filled helmet's rotational performance compared to the EPS helmets was dependent on the impact location, with its overall rotational risk being slightly better than the EPS helmet ranked middle. Our study shows that air-filled chambers have the potential to provide superior protection compared with EPS liner helmets under oblique impacts. We hope our results will inspire new helmet designs which adopt air-filled chambers to improve brain injury protection and address portability concerns that limit helmet adoption.
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.