ArticleScientific reports2026
Sex-based effects of shock energy exposure in warfighters.
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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.