ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
A model of axonal damage accumulation from real-world head impact exposure.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Repetitive head impacts pose a significant threat to brain health. However, their injury accumulation mechanism remains elusive. Here, we study how traumatic axonal injury might accumulate based on typical impact severities and frequencies obtained from University Men's Ice Hockey. From N = 994 impact simulations over a season (N = 22 athletes), we identified 50th (''mild'', 7.0% peak fiber strain), 75th (''intermediate'', 10.6%), and 95th percentile (''moderate'', 17.9%) peak strain magnitudes in the corpus callosum. We simulated up to N = 11 (95th percentile frequency per player game) stretches sequentially using a male axonal injury model to mimic repeated "mild", "intermediate", and "moderate" stretch exposure, along with a moderate insult followed by or following mild/intermediate repetitive stretches. We first identified a "safe" stretch threshold of ~ 5%, below which no cytoskeletal damage or accumulation occurred. Our model predicted that neurofilament (NF) damage accumulated even at the mild magnitude exposure, while damage of tau proteins accumulated at or above the intermediate magnitude. An initial moderate stretch can almost double tau and NF damage accumulation when the axon was exposed to additional intermediate stretches. A history of intermediate stretch exposure prior to a moderate stretch can also increase tau and NF failure (e.g., by ~ 50 and ~ 100%, respectively, relative to a single moderate stretch). These results offer mechanistic insight into why continuing play after concussion would make the brain more vulnerable, and a history of head impacts may lower concussive impact threshold. They may also explain why tau proteins and especially NF-light could serve as concussion-sensitive biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42090120What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.