kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Differences between two maximal principal strain rate calculation schemes in traumatic brain analysis with in-vivo and in-silico datasets
Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, CA, 94305, USA.
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, Neuronic Engineering. Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, CA, 94305, USA; Division of Neuronic Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm SE-100 44, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3910-0418
School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 10019, China; Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, CA, 94305, USA.
Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, CA, 94305, USA.
Show others and affiliations
2025 (English)In: Journal of Biomechanics, ISSN 0021-9290, E-ISSN 1873-2380, Vol. 179, p. 112456-, article id 112456Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2025. Vol. 179, p. 112456-, article id 112456
Keywords [en]
Brain Strain, Maximal Principal Strain Rate, Traumatic Brain Injury
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-358170DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112456ISI: 001385719900001PubMedID: 39671828Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85211968398OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-358170DiVA, id: diva2:1924797
Note

QC 20250115

Available from: 2025-01-07 Created: 2025-01-07 Last updated: 2025-05-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Zhou, Zhou

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zhou, Zhou
By organisation
Neuronic Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Biomechanics
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 111 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf