Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury

Ommaya, A. K., Goldsmith, W., Thibault, L.·2002·British Journal of Neurosurgery

Abstract

The objective of this study was to understand the biomechanics in age-related primary traumatic brain injuries (TBI) causing initial severity and secondary progressive damage and to develop strategy reducing TBI outcome variability using biomechanical reconstruction to identify types of causal mechanisms prior to clinical trials of neuro-protective treatment. The methods included the explanation of TBI biomechanics and physiopathological mechanisms from dual perspectives of neurosurgery and biomechanical engineering. Scaling of tolerances for skull failure and brain injuries in infants, children and adults are developed. Diagnostic assumptions without biomechanical considerations are critiqued. Methods for retrospective TBI reconstruction for prevention are summarized. Mechanisms of TBI are based on the differences between the mechanical properties of the head and neck related to age. Skull fracture levels correlate with increasing cranial bone thickness and in the development of the cranial sutures in infants and in adults. Head injury tolerance levels at three age categories for cerebral concussion, skull fracture and three grades of diffuse axonal injuries (DAI) are presented. Brain mass correlates inversely for TBI caused by angular head motions and locations of injurious stresses are predictable by centripetal theory. Improved quantitative diagnosis of TBI type and severity levels depend primarily on age and biomechanical mechanisms. Reconstruction of the biomechanics is feasible and enables quantitative stratification of TBI severity. Experimental treatment has succeeded in preventing progressive damage in animal TBI models. In humans this has failed, because the animal model received biomechanically controlled TBI and humans did not. Clinical similarities of human TBI patients do not necessarily predict equivalent biomechanics because such trauma can be produced in various ways. We recommend 'reverse engineering' for in-depth reconstruction of the TBI injury mechanism for qualitative diagnoses and reduction of outcome variability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02688690220148824

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Ommaya, A. K., Goldsmith, W., & Thibault, L.
Venue
British Journal of Neurosurgery
Published
2002-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
220-242
ISSN
  • 0268-8697 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-046X
OpenAlex
W2056072199
Cited by
429
References
1
FWCI
12.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02688690220148824
The paper
Ommaya, A. K., Goldsmith, W., & Thibault, L. (2002). Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. British Journal of Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688690220148824

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.