Differences between two maximal principal strain rate calculation schemes in traumatic brain analysis with in-vivo and in-silico datasets

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS Journal of biomechanics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112456
Xianghao Zhan , Zhou Zhou , Yuzhe Liu , Nicholas J. Cecchi , Marzieh Hajiahamemar , Michael M. Zeineh , Gerald A. Grant , David Camarillo
{"title":"Differences between two maximal principal strain rate calculation schemes in traumatic brain analysis with in-vivo and in-silico datasets","authors":"Xianghao Zhan ,&nbsp;Zhou Zhou ,&nbsp;Yuzhe Liu ,&nbsp;Nicholas J. Cecchi ,&nbsp;Marzieh Hajiahamemar ,&nbsp;Michael M. Zeineh ,&nbsp;Gerald A. Grant ,&nbsp;David Camarillo","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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 MPS × SR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one is to use the time derivative of MPS (MPSR<sub>1</sub>), and another is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor (MPSR<sub>2</sub>). Both MPSR<sub>1</sub> and MPSR<sub>2</sub> have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we compared them across eight in-vivo and one in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> was slightly larger than 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> and 95MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 4.85 % larger than 95MPS × SR<sub>2</sub> in average. Across every element in all head impacts, the average MPSR<sub>1</sub> was 12.73 % smaller than MPSR<sub>2</sub>, and MPS × SR<sub>1</sub> was 11.95 % smaller than MPS × SR<sub>2</sub>. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI using MPSR (or MPS × SR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPS × SR thresholds (i.e. compare threshold of 95MPSR<sub>1</sub> with value from 95MPSR<sub>2</sub> 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 112456"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024005359","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","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 MPS × SR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one is to use the time derivative of MPS (MPSR1), and another is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor (MPSR2). Both MPSR1 and MPSR2 have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we compared them across eight in-vivo and one in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR1 was slightly larger than 95MPSR2 and 95MPS × SR1 was 4.85 % larger than 95MPS × SR2 in average. Across every element in all head impacts, the average MPSR1 was 12.73 % smaller than MPSR2, and MPS × SR1 was 11.95 % smaller than MPS × SR2. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI using MPSR (or MPS × SR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPS × SR 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脑外伤时两种最大主应变率计算方法的差异。
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 MPS × SR)结合起来可提高 TBI 预测的准确性。然而,在计算 MPSR 时出现了一些模糊之处。目前有两种方案:一种是使用 MPS 的时间导数(MPSR1),另一种是使用应变速率张量的第一个特征值(MPSR2)。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,我们在八个体内头部撞击数据集和一个模拟头部撞击数据集中对其进行了比较,发现 95MPSR1 略大于 95MPSR2,95MPS × SR1 平均比 95MPS × SR2 大 4.85%。在所有头部撞击的每个元素中,平均 MPSR1 比 MPSR2 小 12.73%,MPS × SR1 比 MPS × SR2 小 11.95%。此外,利用 MPSR(或 MPS × SR)训练了逻辑回归模型来预测创伤性脑损伤,在预测性方面没有观察到显著差异。对误用 MPSR 和 MPS × SR 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
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Acute effects of isometric plantarflexion exercise on Achilles tendon non-uniform displacement Validation of OpenCap on lower extremity kinematics during functional tasks Load transfer between active and passive lumbar tissues and its implications in time-dependent EMG-assisted biomechanical modeling Morphological analysis of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel during wrist movements, finger pinching and palm loading
×
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