4.5 Article

A statistical human rib cage geometry model accounting for variations by age, sex, stature and body mass index

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 47, Issue 10, Pages 2277-2285

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.04.045

Keywords

Rib cage geometry; Principal component analysis; Regression; Vulnerable populations

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [1300815]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body at Hunan University
  3. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate from China
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1300815] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1300815] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we developed a statistical rib cage geometry model accounting for variations by age, sex, stature and body mass index (BMI). Thorax CT scans were obtained from 89 subjects approximately evenly distributed among 8 age groups and both sexes. Threshold-based CT image segmentation was performed to extract the rib geometries, and a total of 464 landmarks on the left side of each subject's ribcage were collected to describe the size and shape of the rib cage as well as the cross-sectional geometry of each rib. Principal component analysis and multivariate regression analysis were conducted to predict rib cage geometry as a function of age, sex, stature, and BMI, all of which showed strong effects on rib cage geometry. Except for BMI, all parameters also showed significant effects on rib cross-sectional area using a linear mixed model. This statistical rib cage geometry model can serve as a geometric basis for developing a parametric human thorax finite element model for quantifying effects from different human attributes on thoracic injury risks. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available