Differences between Two Maximal Principal Strain Rate Calculation Schemes in Traumatic Brain Analysis with in-vivo and in-silico Datasets

Xianghao Zhan, Zhou Zhou, Yuzhe Liu, Nicholas J. Cecchi, Marzieh Hajiahamemar, Michael M. Zeineh, Gerald A. Grant, David Camarillo, Svein Kleiven
{"title":"Differences between Two Maximal Principal Strain Rate Calculation Schemes in Traumatic Brain Analysis with in-vivo and in-silico Datasets","authors":"Xianghao Zhan, Zhou Zhou, Yuzhe Liu, Nicholas J. Cecchi, Marzieh Hajiahamemar, Michael M. Zeineh, Gerald A. Grant, David Camarillo, Svein Kleiven","doi":"arxiv-2409.08164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brain deformation caused by a head impact leads to traumatic brain injury\n(TBI). The maximum principal strain (MPS) was used to measure the extent of\nbrain deformation and predict injury, and the recent evidence has indicated\nthat incorporating the maximum principal strain rate (MPSR) and the product of\nMPS and MPSR, denoted as MPSxSR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction.\nHowever, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes\nhave been utilized: one (MPSR1) is to use the time derivative of MPS, and\nanother (MPSR2) is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor. Both\nMPSR1 and MPSR2 have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To\nquantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we conducted a\ncomparison of these two MPSR methodologies across nine in-vivo and in-silico\nhead impact datasets and found that 95MPSR1 was 5.87% larger than 95MPSR2, and\n95MPSxSR1 was 2.55% larger than 95MPSxSR2. Across every element in all head\nimpacts, MPSR1 was 8.28% smaller than MPSR2, and MPSxSR1 was 8.11% smaller than\nMPSxSR2. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI\nbased on the MPSR (or MPSxSR), and no significant difference was observed in\nthe predictability across different variables. The consequence of misuse of\nMPSR and MPSxSR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR1 with value from\n95MPSR2 to determine if the impact is injurious) was investigated, and the\nresulting false rates were found to be around 1%. The evidence suggested that\nthese two methodologies were not significantly different in detecting TBI.","PeriodicalId":501034,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - EE - Signal Processing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - EE - Signal Processing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.08164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Brain deformation caused by a head impact leads to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The maximum principal strain (MPS) was used to measure the extent of brain deformation and predict injury, and the recent evidence has indicated that incorporating the maximum principal strain rate (MPSR) and the product of MPS and MPSR, denoted as MPSxSR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one (MPSR1) is to use the time derivative of MPS, and another (MPSR2) is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor. Both MPSR1 and MPSR2 have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we conducted a comparison of these two MPSR methodologies across nine in-vivo and in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR1 was 5.87% larger than 95MPSR2, and 95MPSxSR1 was 2.55% larger than 95MPSxSR2. Across every element in all head impacts, MPSR1 was 8.28% smaller than MPSR2, and MPSxSR1 was 8.11% smaller than MPSxSR2. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI based on the MPSR (or MPSxSR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability across different variables. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPSxSR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR1 with value from 95MPSR2 to determine if the impact is injurious) was investigated, and the resulting false rates were found to be around 1%. The evidence suggested that these two methodologies were not significantly different in detecting TBI.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用体内和实验室数据集分析创伤性脑部时两种最大主应变率计算方案的差异
头部撞击造成的脑变形会导致创伤性脑损伤(TBI)。最大主应变(MPS)被用来测量脑变形的程度和预测损伤,最近的证据表明,将最大主应变率(MPSR)以及 MPS 和 MPSR 的乘积(表示为 MPSxSR)结合起来可提高 TBI 预测的准确性。目前有两种方法:一种(MPSR1)是使用 MPS 的时间导数,另一种(MPSR2)是使用应变速率张量的第一个特征值。在以往的研究中,MPSR1 和 MPSR2 都被用于预测创伤性脑损伤。为了量化这两种方法之间的差异,我们在九个活体和模拟头部撞击数据集中对这两种 MPSR 方法进行了比较,发现 95MPSR1 比 95MPSR2 大 5.87%,95MPSxSR1 比 95MPSxSR2 大 2.55%。在所有头部撞击的每个要素中,MPSR1 比 MPSR2 小 8.28%,MPSxSR1 比 MPSxSR2 小 8.11%。此外,还根据 MPSR(或 MPSxSR)训练了逻辑回归模型来预测 TBI,结果发现不同变量的预测能力没有显著差异。对误用 MPSR 和 MPSxSR 临界值(即比较 95MPSR1 临界值和 95MPSR2 临界值以确定撞击是否具有伤害性)的后果进行了调查,结果发现误差率约为 1%。证据表明,这两种方法在检测创伤性脑损伤方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Blind Deconvolution on Graphs: Exact and Stable Recovery End-to-End Learning of Transmitter and Receiver Filters in Bandwidth Limited Fiber Optic Communication Systems Atmospheric Turbulence-Immune Free Space Optical Communication System based on Discrete-Time Analog Transmission User Subgrouping in Scalable Cell-Free Massive MIMO Multicasting Systems Covert Communications Without Pre-Sharing of Side Information and Channel Estimation Over Quasi-Static Fading Channels
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1