Zhou Zhou, Xiaogai Li, Svein Kleiven, Chirag S Shah, Warren N Hardy
{"title":"脑应变实验数据的再分析:对有限元头部模型验证的启示。","authors":"Zhou Zhou, Xiaogai Li, Svein Kleiven, Chirag S Shah, Warren N Hardy","doi":"10.4271/2018-22-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Relative motion between the brain and skull and brain deformation are biomechanics aspects associated with many types of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Thus far, there is only one experimental endeavor (Hardy et al., 2007) reported brain strain under loading conditions commensurate with levels that were capable of producing injury. Most of the existing finite element (FE) head models are validated against brain-skull relative motion and then used for TBI prediction based on strain metrics. However, the suitability of using a model validated against brain-skull relative motion for strain prediction remains to be determined. To partially address the deficiency of experimental brain deformation data, this study revisits the only existing dynamic experimental brain strain data and updates the original calculations, which reflect incremental strain changes. The brain strain is recomputed by imposing the measured motion of neutral density target (NDT) to the NDT triad model. The revised brain strain and the brain-skull relative motion data are then used to test the hypothesis that an FE head model validated against brainskull relative motion does not guarantee its accuracy in terms of brain strain prediction. To this end, responses of brain strain and brain-skull relative motion of a previously developed FE head model (Kleiven, 2007) are compared with available experimental data. CORrelation and Analysis (CORA) and Normalized Integral Square Error (NISE) are employed to evaluate model validation performance for both brain strain and brain-skull relative motion. Correlation analyses (Pearson coefficient) are conducted between average cluster peak strain and average cluster peak brain-skull relative motion, and also between brain strain validation scores and brain-skull relative motion validation scores. The results show no significant correlations, neither between experimentally acquired peaks nor between computationally determined validation scores. These findings indicate that a head model validated against brain-skull relative motion may not be sufficient to assure its strain prediction accuracy. It is suggested that a FE head model with intended use for strain prediction should be validated against the experimental brain deformation data and not just the brain-skull relative motion.</p>","PeriodicalId":35289,"journal":{"name":"Stapp car crash journal","volume":"62 ","pages":"293-318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reanalysis of Experimental Brain Strain Data: Implication for Finite Element Head Model Validation.\",\"authors\":\"Zhou Zhou, Xiaogai Li, Svein Kleiven, Chirag S Shah, Warren N Hardy\",\"doi\":\"10.4271/2018-22-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Relative motion between the brain and skull and brain deformation are biomechanics aspects associated with many types of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Thus far, there is only one experimental endeavor (Hardy et al., 2007) reported brain strain under loading conditions commensurate with levels that were capable of producing injury. Most of the existing finite element (FE) head models are validated against brain-skull relative motion and then used for TBI prediction based on strain metrics. However, the suitability of using a model validated against brain-skull relative motion for strain prediction remains to be determined. To partially address the deficiency of experimental brain deformation data, this study revisits the only existing dynamic experimental brain strain data and updates the original calculations, which reflect incremental strain changes. The brain strain is recomputed by imposing the measured motion of neutral density target (NDT) to the NDT triad model. The revised brain strain and the brain-skull relative motion data are then used to test the hypothesis that an FE head model validated against brainskull relative motion does not guarantee its accuracy in terms of brain strain prediction. To this end, responses of brain strain and brain-skull relative motion of a previously developed FE head model (Kleiven, 2007) are compared with available experimental data. CORrelation and Analysis (CORA) and Normalized Integral Square Error (NISE) are employed to evaluate model validation performance for both brain strain and brain-skull relative motion. Correlation analyses (Pearson coefficient) are conducted between average cluster peak strain and average cluster peak brain-skull relative motion, and also between brain strain validation scores and brain-skull relative motion validation scores. The results show no significant correlations, neither between experimentally acquired peaks nor between computationally determined validation scores. These findings indicate that a head model validated against brain-skull relative motion may not be sufficient to assure its strain prediction accuracy. It is suggested that a FE head model with intended use for strain prediction should be validated against the experimental brain deformation data and not just the brain-skull relative motion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"volume\":\"62 \",\"pages\":\"293-318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"43\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-22-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stapp car crash journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-22-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43
摘要
脑与颅骨之间的相对运动和脑变形是与许多类型的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)相关的生物力学方面的问题。到目前为止,只有一项实验(Hardy et al., 2007)报道了与能够产生损伤的水平相称的负载条件下的脑疲劳。现有的有限元头部模型大多是根据脑-颅骨相对运动进行验证,然后用于基于应变指标的TBI预测。然而,使用针对脑-颅骨相对运动的模型进行应变预测的适用性仍有待确定。为了部分解决脑变形实验数据的不足,本研究重新审视了仅有的动态脑应变实验数据,并更新了反映增量应变变化的原始计算。通过将测量到的中性密度靶(NDT)运动施加到NDT三元模型中,重新计算脑应变。修正后的脑劳损和脑-颅骨相对运动数据被用来检验脑-颅骨相对运动验证的FE头部模型在脑劳损预测方面不能保证准确性的假设。为此,将先前开发的FE头部模型(Kleiven, 2007)的脑应变反应和脑-颅骨相对运动与现有实验数据进行比较。采用相关分析(CORA)和归一化积分平方误差(NISE)对脑劳损和脑-颅相对运动模型验证性能进行评价。对平均簇峰应变与平均簇峰脑-颅骨相对运动、脑应变验证分数与脑-颅骨相对运动验证分数进行Pearson相关分析。结果显示,无论是在实验获得的峰值之间,还是在计算确定的验证分数之间,都没有显著的相关性。这些发现表明,针对脑-颅骨相对运动验证的头部模型可能不足以保证其应变预测的准确性。作者建议,一个用于应变预测的头部有限元模型应该根据实验脑变形数据进行验证,而不仅仅是脑-颅相对运动。
A Reanalysis of Experimental Brain Strain Data: Implication for Finite Element Head Model Validation.
Relative motion between the brain and skull and brain deformation are biomechanics aspects associated with many types of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Thus far, there is only one experimental endeavor (Hardy et al., 2007) reported brain strain under loading conditions commensurate with levels that were capable of producing injury. Most of the existing finite element (FE) head models are validated against brain-skull relative motion and then used for TBI prediction based on strain metrics. However, the suitability of using a model validated against brain-skull relative motion for strain prediction remains to be determined. To partially address the deficiency of experimental brain deformation data, this study revisits the only existing dynamic experimental brain strain data and updates the original calculations, which reflect incremental strain changes. The brain strain is recomputed by imposing the measured motion of neutral density target (NDT) to the NDT triad model. The revised brain strain and the brain-skull relative motion data are then used to test the hypothesis that an FE head model validated against brainskull relative motion does not guarantee its accuracy in terms of brain strain prediction. To this end, responses of brain strain and brain-skull relative motion of a previously developed FE head model (Kleiven, 2007) are compared with available experimental data. CORrelation and Analysis (CORA) and Normalized Integral Square Error (NISE) are employed to evaluate model validation performance for both brain strain and brain-skull relative motion. Correlation analyses (Pearson coefficient) are conducted between average cluster peak strain and average cluster peak brain-skull relative motion, and also between brain strain validation scores and brain-skull relative motion validation scores. The results show no significant correlations, neither between experimentally acquired peaks nor between computationally determined validation scores. These findings indicate that a head model validated against brain-skull relative motion may not be sufficient to assure its strain prediction accuracy. It is suggested that a FE head model with intended use for strain prediction should be validated against the experimental brain deformation data and not just the brain-skull relative motion.