ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Effects of Crew Seat Inclination on Multi-Organ Injury Risk in Astronauts During Off-Nominal High-g Landing Impact.
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
Abstract
purposeDuring off-nominal landings, spacecraft reentry capsules can experience impact accelerations far exceeding the 8-12 g typical of nominal returns, with peak values surpassing 50 g and rise times under 100 ms. Such loading conditions pose multi-organ injury risks to astronauts. This study systematically investigates how seatback inclination modulates these risks.
methodsDrop tower tests were performed at three severity levels (Low: 18 g, Mid: 32 g, High: 45 g) using a Hybrid III 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test device. The measured velocity pulses then drove THUMS AM50 v7.0 simulations across five seatback inclinations (0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°). Injury risk was evaluated using dynamic injury criteria (HIC
resultsAll dynamic injury criteria worsened monotonically with increasing inclination; the lumbar spine were the most sensitive region. Tissue-level responses revealed conflicting organ-specific demands: Brain CSDM0.2 and Aorta MPS reached minima at 0°, Lung MPS at 40°, while Myocardial VMS displayed a U-shaped minimum near 20°. Lung MPS and Lung CSDM0.343 trended in opposite directions-peak local strain was highest at 0°, whereas the volume fraction exceeding the injury threshold peaked at 40°-indicating a shift in lung deformation mode from localized compression to diffuse stretching. Segmented regression confirmed that injury risk is strongly correlated with seat inclination, with risk ratios per degree ranging from 1.003 (neck, Low impact) to 1.739 (lumbar, beyond 10°). The sensitivity analysis detected no cross-over interactions, confirming that the relative ranking of inclinations was robust to variations in contact conditions.
conclusionNo single inclination simultaneously minimized injury risk across all anatomical regions. The supine posture (0°) offered the greatest protection for the brain, spine, and aorta, but maximized lung strain. A lower inclination range (0°-20°) provided a more favorable overall balance than substantially reclined postures (30°-40°), though the precise optimum differed by organ system. These findings provide quantitative guidance for adaptive crew restraint system design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42603230What 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.