| 1. |
- Jakobsson, Lotta, 1967, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation criteria for AIS 1 neck injuries in frontal impacts - A parameter study combining field data and Madymo modelling
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Traffic Injury Prevention. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1538-957X .- 1538-9588. ; 5:4, s. 374-381
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two situations with an expected higher AIS 1 neck injury rate in frontal impact were compared to a reference situation using a Madymo human body model in three different sitting postures and four different crash pulses. The two situations were reduced occupant weight and occupant with initial forward arm resistance, respectively. Occupant neck motion phases were identified and corresponding possible evaluation criteria were evaluated within the phases. Typical neck kinematics was seen for the two different situations. Occupants of lower weight had a more extended neck in the initial protraction phase and also a generally more pronounced upper neck link angle. Occupants with initial arm resistance had generally greater lower neck link angle at the time when the upper neck link angle was straight. No evaluation criteria reflected the anticipated AIS 1 neck injury rate consistently. In the initial protraction phase, NICmincorrelated to expected injury outcome in almost half of the cases. In the protractionflexion shift phase, Nkm, Nij, upper neck shear force and neck tension force reflected anticipated severity outcome to some extent. In the flexion phase, upper and lower neck extension correlated to anticipated AIS 1 neck injury rate only to a minor extent. The different sitting postures were more influential than the different crash pulses, emphasizing the importance of not only considering the spectra of impact severity but also differences in sitting postures in safety system development and evaluation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pivodic, Aldina, 1978, et al.
(författare)
-
Development and validation of a new clinical decision support tool to optimize screening for retinopathy of prematurity
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Ophthalmology. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0007-1161 .- 1468-2079. ; 106:11, s. 1573-1580
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prematurely born infants undergo costly, stressful eye examinations to uncover the small fraction with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) that needs treatment to prevent blindness. The aim was to develop a prediction tool (DIGIROP-Screen) with 100% sensitivity and high specificity to safely reduce screening of those infants not needing treatment. DIGIROP-Screen was compared with four other ROP models based on longitudinal weights.METHODS: Data, including infants born at 24-30 weeks of gestational age (GA), for DIGIROP-Screen development (DevGroup, N=6991) originate from the Swedish National Registry for ROP. Three international cohorts comprised the external validation groups (ValGroups, N=1241). Multivariable logistic regressions, over postnatal ages (PNAs) 6-14 weeks, were validated. Predictors were birth characteristics, status and age at first diagnosed ROP and essential interactions.RESULTS: ROP treatment was required in 287 (4.1%)/6991 infants in DevGroup and 49 (3.9%)/1241 in ValGroups. To allow 100% sensitivity in DevGroup, specificity at birth was 53.1% and cumulatively 60.5% at PNA 8 weeks. Applying the same cut-offs in ValGroups, specificities were similar (46.3% and 53.5%). One infant with severe malformations in ValGroups was incorrectly classified as not needing screening. For all other infants, at PNA 6-14 weeks, sensitivity was 100%. In other published models, sensitivity ranged from 88.5% to 100% and specificity ranged from 9.6% to 45.2%.CONCLUSIONS: DIGIROP-Screen, a clinical decision support tool using readily available birth and ROP screening data for infants born GA 24-30 weeks, in the European and North American populations tested can safely identify infants not needing ROP screening. DIGIROP-Screen had equal or higher sensitivity and specificity compared with other models. DIGIROP-Screen should be tested in any new cohort for validation and if not validated it can be modified using the same statistical approaches applied to a specific clinical setting.
|
|
