Demographics, Velocity Distributions, and Impact Type as Predictors of AIS 4+ Head Injuries in Motor Vehicle Crashes.

Narayan Yoganandan, Michael Fitzharris, Frank A Pintar, Brian D Stemper, James Rinaldi, Dennis J Maiman, Brian N Fildes
{"title":"Demographics, Velocity Distributions, and Impact Type as Predictors of AIS 4+ Head Injuries in Motor Vehicle Crashes.","authors":"Narayan Yoganandan,&nbsp;Michael Fitzharris,&nbsp;Frank A Pintar,&nbsp;Brian D Stemper,&nbsp;James Rinaldi,&nbsp;Dennis J Maiman,&nbsp;Brian N Fildes","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of the study was to determine differences between the United States-based NASS and CIREN and Australia-based ANCIS databases in occupant-, crash-, and vehicle-related parameters for AIS 4+ head injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine roles of the change in velocity (DV), crash type (frontal, far-side, nearside, rear impact), seatbelt use, and occupant position, gender, age, stature, and body mass in cranial traumas. Belted and unbelted non-ejected occupant (age >16 years) data from 1997-2006 were used for the NASS and CIREN datasets, and 2000-2010 for ANCIS. Vehicle model year, and occupant position and demographics including body mass index (BMI) data were obtained. Injuries were coded using AIS 1990-1998 update. Similarities were apparent across all databases: mean demographics were close to the mid-size anthropometry, mean BMI was in the normal to overweight range, and representations of extreme variations were uncommon. Side impacts contributed to over one-half of the ensemble, implying susceptibility to head trauma in this mode. Odds of sustaining head injury increased by 4% per unit increase in DV (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.04, p<0.001; adjusted for other variables); one-half for belted compared to unbelted occupants (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37-0.61, p<0.001); nearside, then far-side had significantly higher odds than frontal, and no difference by gender or position (front-left, front-right). Similar crash- and occupant-related outcomes from the two continents indicate a worldwide need to revise the translation acceleration-based head injury criterion to include the angular component in an appropriate format for improved injury assessment and mitigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":87875,"journal":{"name":"Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference","volume":"55 ","pages":"267-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256840/pdf/file062final.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

The objective of the study was to determine differences between the United States-based NASS and CIREN and Australia-based ANCIS databases in occupant-, crash-, and vehicle-related parameters for AIS 4+ head injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine roles of the change in velocity (DV), crash type (frontal, far-side, nearside, rear impact), seatbelt use, and occupant position, gender, age, stature, and body mass in cranial traumas. Belted and unbelted non-ejected occupant (age >16 years) data from 1997-2006 were used for the NASS and CIREN datasets, and 2000-2010 for ANCIS. Vehicle model year, and occupant position and demographics including body mass index (BMI) data were obtained. Injuries were coded using AIS 1990-1998 update. Similarities were apparent across all databases: mean demographics were close to the mid-size anthropometry, mean BMI was in the normal to overweight range, and representations of extreme variations were uncommon. Side impacts contributed to over one-half of the ensemble, implying susceptibility to head trauma in this mode. Odds of sustaining head injury increased by 4% per unit increase in DV (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.04, p<0.001; adjusted for other variables); one-half for belted compared to unbelted occupants (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37-0.61, p<0.001); nearside, then far-side had significantly higher odds than frontal, and no difference by gender or position (front-left, front-right). Similar crash- and occupant-related outcomes from the two continents indicate a worldwide need to revise the translation acceleration-based head injury criterion to include the angular component in an appropriate format for improved injury assessment and mitigation.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人口统计学、速度分布和冲击类型作为机动车碰撞中AIS 4+头部损伤的预测因子。
该研究的目的是确定美国NASS和CIREN数据库与澳大利亚ANCIS数据库在机动车碰撞中AIS 4+头部损伤的乘员、碰撞和车辆相关参数方面的差异。采用Logistic回归分析来检验速度(DV)、碰撞类型(正面、远侧、近侧、后碰撞)、安全带使用、乘员位置、性别、年龄、身材和体重的变化在颅脑损伤中的作用。NASS和CIREN数据集使用了1997-2006年系安全带和未系安全带的非弹射乘员(年龄>16岁)的数据,ANCIS数据集使用了2000-2010年的数据。获得车辆型号年,乘员位置和人口统计数据,包括身体质量指数(BMI)数据。使用AIS 1990-1998更新对损伤进行编码。所有数据库的相似性都很明显:平均人口统计数据接近中等身材的人体测量值,平均BMI在正常到超重的范围内,极端差异的表现并不常见。侧面撞击占了整体的一半以上,这意味着在这种模式下,头部容易受到创伤。每单位DV增加,持续头部损伤的几率增加4% (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.04, p
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
Visual and cognitive distraction metrics in the age of the smart phone: A basic review. Dynamics of Driver Distraction: The process of engaging and disengaging. Modeling situation awareness and crash risk. An opportunity for convergence? Understanding the prevalence and risk of distracted driving through the use of crash databases, crash investigations, and other approaches. Estimates of prevalence and risk associated with inattention and distraction based upon in situ naturalistic data.
×
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