ArticleScientific reports2026
Bioengineering approaches to dynamic impact analysis for cranial fracture interpretation in arcaheology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cranial fractures are widely documented in archaeological contexts, yet the application of fracture mechanics to differentiate traumatic events remains limited. This study analyses a dataset of 234 human cadavers subjected to 329 experimentally controlled blunt-impact tests, examining mechanical variables and fracture patterns that could be relevant to archaeological interpretation. The results show substantial methodological variability across the analysed studies. Analysis of these studies indicates that impact energy is the most reliable parameter for assessing fracture severity, suggesting a preliminary fracture threshold of around 2000 N, and that bone thickness is a major determinant of cranial resistance. Clear differences in fracture morphology according to impact surface were also observed: focal surfaces frequently produce depressed and comminuted fractures, whereas broad surfaces predominantly generate linear fractures. These data provide a framework for archaeological analysis: bone thickness, fracture morphology, and the presence and distribution of secondary fractures offer indirect but informative proxies for impact energy and surface characteristics, which could help to distinguish violent from non-violent events. This study emphasizes the need for dynamic fracture-mechanics approaches and targeted experimental work to better characterise archaeological impacts.
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.