Differences between Two Maximal Principal Strain Rate Calculation Schemes in Traumatic Brain Analysis with in-vivo and in-silico Datasets

TL;DR

This study compares two methods for calculating maximum principal strain rate in brain injury analysis, finding minimal differences and similar predictive capabilities across multiple datasets.

Contribution

It provides a systematic comparison of MPSR calculation schemes, clarifying their discrepancies and implications for TBI prediction.

Findings

MPSR1 is slightly larger than MPSR2 in datasets.

No significant difference in TBI prediction accuracy between methods.

Misuse of thresholds results in about 1% false rate.

Abstract

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 MPSxSR, enhances the accuracy of TBI prediction. However, ambiguities have arisen about the calculation of MPSR. Two schemes have been utilized: one (MPSR1) is to use the time derivative of MPS, and another (MPSR2) is to use the first eigenvalue of the strain rate tensor. Both MPSR1 and MPSR2 have been applied in previous studies to predict TBI. To quantify the discrepancies between these two methodologies, we conducted a comparison of these two MPSR methodologies across nine in-vivo and in-silico head impact datasets and found that 95MPSR1 was 5.87% larger than 95MPSR2, and 95MPSxSR1 was 2.55% larger than 95MPSxSR2. Across every element in all head impacts, MPSR1 was 8.28% smaller than MPSR2, and MPSxSR1 was 8.11% smaller than MPSxSR2. Furthermore, logistic regression models were trained to predict TBI based on the MPSR (or MPSxSR), and no significant difference was observed in the predictability across different variables. The consequence of misuse of MPSR and MPSxSR 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.