Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42730899›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

Material response under localised loading: proposed alternatives to ballistic gelatine for wound ballistics research.

James Read, Rachael Hazael, Richard Critchley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 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

3 authors.

James ReadCentre for Defence Engineering and Physical Science, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA, UK.
Rachael HazaelCentre for Defence Engineering and Physical Science, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA, UK.
Richard CritchleyCentre for Defence Engineering and Physical Science, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA, UK. r.critchley@cranfield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5423-9859

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In experimentation where replication of the human torso is required, ballistic gelatine has historically been the baseline material for the international research community. However, with many test standards requiring the provision of ballistic gelatine from a limited number of suppliers, and shrinking research budgets becoming ever more prevalent, it is paramount that alternative materials are investigated with the aim of reducing economic impact and environmental concerns associated with the supply chain alongside becoming more ethically advantageous. Whilst previous works established a relationship between quasistatic mechanical response and penetration performance, this study advances that understanding by examining how loading rate and surface finish interactions modify this response under localised loading. This study presents the literature with a more complete interpretation of material behaviour that more closely resemble impact loading conditions and clarifies the limitations on relying solely on low strain-rate mechanical characterisation when assessing surrogate fidelity. It is proposed that both animal and plant-based alternatives reported herein may be used as viable alternatives to Ballistic Gelatine, with the authors recommending areas of further work to ensure the research community fully understand each material's limitations.

Indexed as

BallisticsCharacterisationCompressionMechanicalTissue surrogate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.