ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
A General Kinematic Brain Injury Criterion Combining Translational and Rotational Effects.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe human brain typically experiences both translational and rotational motions during impact. Existing kinematic brain injury criteria often consider only one of these effects, or lack a reasonable combination of both, which may lead to significant misjudgments. This study proposes a general injury criterion (GIC) that uses the widely accepted injury criterion of maximum principal strain (MPS) as an intermediary variable and comprehensively accounts for both translational and rotational effects.
methodsA total of 178 head impact cases were established, considering different impact types, locations, directions, and velocities. Corresponding finite element models were constructed based on the THUMS model. The translational and rotational effects were quantitatively analyzed. Using MPS as an intermediate variable, the GIC was carefully developed and compared with existing injury criteria. On this basis, an application demonstration was performed by combining simulation results with clinical outcomes from existing literature.
resultsThe quantitative analysis results of translational and rotational effects show that their contributions to the MPS are often comparable, and their effects on brain injury need to be considered simultaneously. GIC, combining the translational and rotational effects, has the highest linear correlation with MPS. It shows a 17% higher linear correlation than the second-best criterion. In addition, for 24 clinically diagnosed TBI cases, the classification accuracy of GIC reaches 58 and 92% when the MPS injury thresholds are set at 0.2 and 0.35, respectively.
conclusionThe proposed GIC achieves the highest goodness of fit with MPS among the kinematic criteria evaluated in this study and demonstrates the feasibility of predicting traumatic brain injury with case studies of impacts. It provides a practical tool for rapid kinematics-based brain injury assessment in bioengineering and safety engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41920405What 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.