Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41936693›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Sex-based effects of shock energy exposure in warfighters.

Melissa Sutter, Catherine Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Melissa SutterDepartment of Mining and Explosive Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 290 McNutt Hall, Rolla, MO, USA.
Catherine JohnsonDepartment of Mining and Explosive Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 290 McNutt Hall, Rolla, MO, USA. Catherine.johnson@mst.edu.

Funding

Army Research Laboratory W911NF-24-2-0093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal armors were initially designed to fit against the male torso, as men previously filled roles requiring them, thus not made to accommodate the female anatomy. As a result, armor worn by female warfighters tends to have non-form fit in the waist, armpit, bust, and collarbone areas, causing reduced coverage. Shifting, riding up, air gaps, breathing difficulty, and physical discomfort have also been observed. Although this has been documented, the impact on the armor's protective capabilities has not been well studied. To address this, this study compared the protective capabilities of unisex armor for male and female warfighters from shock threats. Instrumented manikins were exposed to free-field blasts to assess pressure exposure in as-worn conditions. Directionality effects were considered in this study, using five directions from the shock source. It was found that the most harmful exposure to both warfighters occurred during a head-on interaction, with average impulse values 9.7%-72.6% higher than other orientations and peak pressures being 111.0 and 107.9 kPa, respectively. Moreover, a female body shape altered armor fit to increase impulses by up to 78.6%, relative to no armor being worn. This result was not observed for the male warfighter, though peak pressures were reduced for both.

Indexed as

Blast InjuriesMilitary PersonnelProtective ClothingFemaleHumansMalePressureSex FactorsBody armorFemale warfighterOrientation effectsPressureShock exposure

Identifiers

PMID41936693
PMCPMC13216309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.