ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Numerical Study of Human Torso Mechanical Response and Injury Assessment Under Blast Loading with Bulletproof Protection.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith the advancement of weapon technology, explosion injuries have become a major trauma type in modern warfare. Although many studies have investigated blast injuries, most focus on unprotected conditions and lack accurate simulation. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical response and establish injury thresholds of the human torso under blast loading with and without protection.
methodsTHUMS is used to build a coupled human bulletproof air model. Stress distribution and kinematic parameters of key organs are analyzed to assess the protective effect of bulletproof equipment.
resultsBulletproof protection modifies the surface stress of the torso, potentially increasing skin injury risk. For internal organs such as the heart, lungs, and liver, protection maintains similar initial stress patterns but reduces stress propagation and peak values. Its attenuation effect on skeletons is limited and may even increase stress locally. A linear relationship between chest wall velocity and lung stress is identified. The Axelsson injury model is found unsuitable for protected cases, and a model-based velocity threshold corresponding to equivalent peak lung stress is proposed. The stress-equivalent chest wall velocity under protected conditions increased by approximately 14.8% compared with the unprotected case, though this proposed threshold requires further experimental and biological validation.
conclusionBulletproof protection significantly alters human biomechanical responses to blast loading. These findings may contribute to refinement of injury assessment criteria under protected conditions and support optimization of both medical treatment and protective equipment design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42390685What 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.