The present paper explores a series of articles in the literature which deal with impact biomechanics of the head and thorax/abdomen segments, investigating the “sex specific properties/data” used in the studies. Statements in these studies are analyzed and point out, the use of male or female subjects for the developments of finite element models and their validation against experimental data. The present analysis raises the question about “androcentrism,” and how biomechanical engineering findings and the design of the derived protecting devices are focused on male subjects.
FusterVRebatoERosiqueJ, et al. Physical activity related to forced vital capacity and strength performance in a sample of young males and females. Coll Antropol2008; 32(1): 53–60.
7.
FerberRMcClay DavisIWilliamsDSIII. Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. Clin Biomech2003; 18: 350–357.
8.
KingMHeereyJSchacheA, et al. Lower limb biomechanics of men and women with hip-related pain, do we need to consider sex in evaluating biomechanics?J Sci Med Sport2019; 22(Supplement 2): S70–S71.
9.
MalinzakRAColbySMKirkendallDT, et al. A comparison of knee joint motion patterns between men and women in selected athletic tasks. Clin Biomech2001; 16(5): 438–445.
10.
SinclairJGreenhalghAEdmundsonCJ, et al. Gender differences in the kinetics and kinematics of distance running: implications for footwear design. Int J Sci Eng2012; 06(02): 118–128.
11.
LewisDAKamonEHodgsonJL. Physiological differences between genders implications for sports conditioning. Sports Med1986; 3(5): 357–369.
12.
NeighGNMitzelfeltMM. Sex differences in physiology. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2016.
13.
OtsukaSYakuraTOhmichiY, et al. Site specificity of mechanical and structural properties of human fascia lata and their gender differences: a cadaveric study. J Biomech2018; 77: 69–75.
14.
OrishimoKFLiederbachMKremenicIJ, et al. Comparison of landing biomechanics between male and female dancers and athletes, part 1: influence of sex on risk of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med2014; 42(5): 1082–1088.
15.
YangKHHuJWhiteNA, et al. Development of numerical models for injury biomechanics research: a review of 50 years of publications in the stapp car crash conference. Stapp Car Crash J2006; 50: 429–490.
16.
KleinbergerM. Application of finite element techniques to the study of cervical spine mechanics. In: Proceedings of the 37th stapp car crash conference, San Antonio, TX, 1993, paper no. 933131.
17.
JagerMDSaurenAThunnissenJ, et al. A global and a detailed mathematical model for head-neck dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 40th stapp car crash conference, Albuquerque, 4–6 November 1996. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineering.
18.
DauvilliersFBendjellalFWeissM, et al. Development of a finite element model of the neck. In: Proceedings of the 38th stapp car crash conference, Ft Lauderdale, FL, 1994, paper no. 942210.
19.
CamachoDLNightingaleRWRobinetteJJ, et al. Experimental flexibility measurements for the development of a computational head-neck model validated for near-vertex head impact. In: Proceedings of the 41st stapp car crash conference, FL, 1997, paper no. 973345.
20.
KumaresanSYoganandanNPintarFA. Age-specific pediatric cervical spine biomechanical responses: three-dimensional nonlinear finite element models. In: Proceedings of the 41st stapp car crash conference, FL, 1997, paper no. 973319.
21.
MeyerFBourdetNDeckC, et al. Human neck finite element model development and validation against original experimental data. In: Proceedings of the 48th stapp car conference, Nashville, TN, 2004, paper no. 2004-22-0008.
22.
TakhountsEGEppingerRHCampbellJQ, et al. On the development of the SIMon finite element head model. In: Proceedings of the 47th stapp car crash conference, San Diego, CA, 2003, paper no. 2003-22-0007.
23.
MaoHZhangLJiangB, et al. Development of a finite element human head model partially validated with thirty five experimental cases. J Biomech Eng2013; 135(11): 111002.
24.
GilsonLRabetLImadA, et al. Ballistic impact response of a fluid/structure coupling-based modification of human thorax modelling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 119: 104493.
25.
BodoMBracqADelilleR, et al. Thorax injury criteria assessment through non-lethal impact using an enhanced biomechanical model. J Mech Med Biol2017; 17(07): 1740027.
26.
HuangYKingAICavanaughJM. Finite element modeling of gross motion of human cadavers in side impact. In: Proceedings of the 38th stapp car crash conference, Ft Lauderdale, FL, 1994.
27.
RuanJSEl-JawahriRBarbatS, et al. Biomechanical analysis of human abdominal impact responses and injuries through finite element simulations of a full human body model. Stapp Car Crash J2005; 49: 343–366.
28.
ZhangLYangKHKingAI. A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury. J Biomech Eng2004; 126(2): 226–236.
29.
ZhouCKhalilTBKingAI. A new model comparing impact response of the homogeneous and inhomogeneous human brain. In: Proceedings of the 39th stapp car crash conference, 1995, paper no. 952714, pp.121–137. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
30.
GayzikFSMorenoDPGeerCP, et al. Development of a full body CAD dataset for computational modeling: a multi-modality approach. Ann Biomed Eng2011; 39(10): 2568–2583.
31.
BrandsDWA. Predicting brain mechanics during closed head impact: numerical and constitutive aspects. PhD Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2002.
32.
HorganTJGilchristMD. The creation of three-dimensional finite element models for simulating head impact biomechanics. Int J Crashworthiness2003; 8(4): 353–366.
33.
IwamotoMKisanukiYWatanabeI, et al. Development of a finite element model of the total human model for safety (THUMS) and application to injury reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the biomechanics of impacts, Munich, 2002, pp.31–42.
34.
TuchtanLPiercecchi-MartiMDBartoliC, et al. Forces transmission to the skull in case of mandibular impact. Forensic Sci Int2015; 252: 22–28.
35.
TakhountsEGRidellaSAHasijaV, et al. Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation of simulated injury monitor (SIMon) finite element head model. Stapp Car Crash J2008; 52: 1–31.
36.
YangBTseKMChenN, et al. Development of a finite element head model for the study of impact head injury. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 1–14.
37.
FernandesFAOTchepelDAlves de SousaRJ, et al. Development and validation of a new finite element human head model. Eng Comput2018; 35(1): 477–496.
38.
HamelALlariMPiercecchi-MartiMD, et al. Effects of fall conditions and biological variability on the mechanism of skull fractures caused by falls. Int J Legal Med2013; 127: 111–118.
39.
KangHSWillingerRDiawB, et al. Validation of a3D anatomic human head model and replication of head impact in motorcycle accident by finite element modelling. SAE Technical Paper 973339, 1997, https://doi.org/10.4271/973339.
40.
RaulJSBaumgartnerDWillingerR, et al. Finite element modelling of human head injuries caused by a fall. Int J Legal Med2006; 120(4): 212–218.
41.
DixitPLiuGR. A review on recent development of finite element models for head injury simulations. Arch Comput Methods Eng2017; 24: 979–1031.
42.
CanapleBRungenGDrazeticP, et al. Towards a finite element head model used as a head injury predictive tool. IJ Crash2003; 8(1): 41–52.
43.
KleivenSvon HolstH. Consequences of head size following trauma to the human head. J Biomech2002; 35: 153–160.
44.
KleivenSvon HolstH. Consequences of brain size following impact hematoma evaluated with numerical techniques. In: IRCOBI conference, Isle of Man, UK, 2001, pp.161–172.
45.
RobertsSBChenPH. Elastostatic analysis of the human thoracic skeleton. J Biomech1970; 3: 527–545.
46.
PlankGRKleinbergerMEppingerRH. Finite element modelling and analysis of thorax/restraint system interaction. In: 14th ESV Conference, Munich, 1994, 94-S1-0-16.
47.
RuanJEl-JawahriRChaiL, et al. Prediction and analysis of human thoracic impact responses and injuries in cadaver impacts using a full human body finite element model. Stapp Car Crash J2003; 47: 299–321.
48.
JollyJEKwonWY. Computer modeling and simulation of bullet impact to the human thorax NPS-ME-00-002. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2000.
49.
ShenWNiuYMattreyRF, et al. Development and validation of subject-specific finite element models for blunt trauma study. J Biomech Eng2008; 130(2): 021022.
50.
ShahCSYangKHHardyW, et al. Development of a computer model to predict aortic rupture due to impact loading. Stapp Car Crash J2001; 45: 161–182.
51.
WangHC. Development of a side impact finite element human thoracic model. PhD Dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 1995.
52.
KimparaHLeeJBYangKH, et al. Development of a three-dimensional finite element chest model for the 5th percentile female. In: Proceedings of the 49th stapp car crash conference, Washington, DC, 2005, paper no. 2005-22-0012.
53.
RothSTorresFFeuersteinP, et al. Anthropometric dependence of the response of a thorax FE model under high speed loading: validation and real world accident replication. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2013; 110: 160–170.
54.
JansovaMHyncikLCechovaH, et al. Evaluation of human thorax FE model in various impact scenarios. Appl Comput Mech2015; 9: 5–20.
55.
RobertsJCO’ConnorJVWardEE. Modeling the effect of non-penetrating ballistic impact as a means of detecting behind armor blunt trauma. Trauma2005; 58: 1241–1251.
56.
ZhangGChenXOhgiJ, et al. Biomechanical simulation of thorax deformation using finite element approach. Biomed Eng Online2016; 15: 15–18.
57.
ShigetaKKitagawaYYasukiT. Development of next generation human FE model capable of organ injury prediction. In: 21st International technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany, 15–19 June 2009, paper no. 09-0111.
58.
KoutrasCShayestehpourHPérezJ, et al. Biomechanical morphing for personalized fitting of scoliotic torso skeleton models. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2022; 10: 945461.
59.
KangJChenJDongP, et al. Numerical simulation of human torso dynamics under non-penetrating ballistic impact on soft armor. Int J Digit Content Technol Appl2012; 6: 843–850.
60.
LeeJBYangKH. Development of a finite element model of the human abdomen. Stapp Car Crash J2001; 45: 79–100.
61.
OndokováLHynčíkL. Abdominal finite element model for traffic accidents injury analysis. Anal Trans Transp Sci2010; 3(4): 169–178.
62.
ChoiHYLeeIH. Advanced finite element modeling of the human body for occupant safety simulation. In: EuroPam, 1999.
63.
HaugEChoiHYRobinS, et al. Human models for crash and impact simulation. In: Ayache N and Ciarlet Ph (ed.), Computational Models for the Human Body, Special Volume of Handbook of Numerical Analyses, Vol. XII. San Diego: Elsevier, 2004.
64.
BehrMArnouxPJSerreT, et al. A human model for road safety: from geometrical acquisition to model validation with radioss. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2003; 6(4): 263–273.
65.
LizeeERobinSSongE, et al. Development of a 3D finite element model of the human body. SAE Trans, 1998; 107: 2760–2782.
66.
ÖsthJMendoza-VazquezMLinderA, et al. The VIVA OpenHBM finite element 50th percentile female occupant model: whole body model development and kinematic validation. In: IRCOBI conference, Antwerp, Belgium, 2017.
67.
SerreTBrunetCBruyereK, et al. HUMOS (human model for safety) geometry: from one specimen to the 5th and 95th percentile. SAE technical paper 2006-01-2324, 2006.
68.
DavisMLKoyaBSchapJM, et al. Development and full body validation of a 5th percentile female finite element model. Stapp Car Crash J2016; 60: 509–544.
69.
IwamotoMNakahiraYKimparaH, et al. Development of a finite element model of 5th percentile female with multiple muscles and its application to investigation on impact responses of elderly females. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ESV conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2013.
70.
NahumAMSmithRW. An Experimental model for closed head impact injury. SAE technical paper 760825, 1976.
71.
NahumAMSmithRWardCC. Intracranial pressure dynamics during head impact. SAE technical paper 770922, 1977.
72.
HardyWNMasonMJFosterCD, et al. A study of the response of the human cadaver head to impact. Stapp Car Crash J2007; 51: 17–80.
73.
StalnakerRMelvinJNusholtzG, et al. Head impact response. SAE technical paper 770921, 1977.
74.
BaylyPVCohenTSLeisterEP, et al. Deformation of the human brain induced by mild acceleration. J Neurotrauma2005; 22(8): 845–856.
75.
SabetAAChristoforouEZatlinB, et al. Deformation of the human brain induced by mild angular head acceleration. J Biomech2008; 41(2): 307–315.
76.
FengYAbneyTMOkamotoRJ, et al. Relative brain displacement and deformation during constrained mild frontal head impact. J R Soc Interface2010; 7: 1677–1688.
77.
KnutsenAKMagrathEMcEnteeJE, et al. Improved measurement of brain deformation during mild head acceleration using a novel tagged MRI sequence. J Biomech2014; 47(14): 3475–3481.
78.
KnutsenAKGomezADGangolliM, et al. In vivo estimates of axonal stretch and 3D brain deformation during mild head impact. Brain Multiphysics2020; 1: 100015.
79.
ChanDDKnutsenAKLuYC, et al. Statistical characterization of human brain deformation during mild angular acceleration measured in vivo by tagged magnetic resonance imaging. J Biomech Eng2018; 140(10): 1010051.
80.
AlshareefAGiudiceJSFormanJ, et al. A novel method for quantifying human in situ whole brain deformation under rotational loading using sonomicrometry. J Neurotrauma2018; 35: 780–789.
81.
GomezADBaylyPVButmanJA, et al. Group characterization of impact-induced, in vivo human brain kinematics. J R Soc Interface2021; 18: 20210251.
82.
KroellCKSchneiderDCNahumAM. Impact tolerance and response of the human thorax. In: Proceedings of the 15th stapp car crash conference, 1971, paper no. 710851. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
83.
KroellCKSchneiderDCNahumAM. Impact tolerance and response of the human thorax II. SAE Trans1974; 83: 3724–3762.
84.
VianoDC. Biomechanical responses and injuries in blunt lateral impact. SAE Trans1989; 98: 1690–1719.
85.
TalantikiteYBouquetRRametM, et al. Human thorax behaviour for side impact influence of impact masses and velocities. In: Proceedings of 16th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles (ESV), Windsor, Canada, 1998, Paper no. 98- S7-O-03, pp.1542–1549.
86.
KentRLessleyDSherwoodC. Thoracic response to dynamic, non-impact loading from a hub, distributed belt, diagonal belt, and double diagonal belts. Stapp Car Crash J2004; 48: 495–519.
87.
KentRPatrieJ. Chest deflection tolerance to blunt anterior loading is sensitive to age but not load distribution. Forensic Sci Int2005; 149: 121–128.
88.
KentRWFormanJLBostromO. Is there really a “cushion effect”?: a biomechanical investigation of crash injury mechanisms in the obese. Obesity2010; 18: 749–753.
89.
CavanaughJMNyquistGWGoldbergSJ, et al. Lower abdominal tolerance and response. SAE technical paper861878, 1986.
90.
HardyWNSchneiderLWRouhanaSW. Abdominal impact response to rigid-bar, seatbelt, and airbag loading. Stapp Car Crash Journal2001; 45: 1–32.
91.
BolteJHHinesMHHerriottRG, et al. Shoulder impact response and injury due to lateral and oblique loading. Stapp Car Crash Journal2003; 47: 35–53.
92.
CavanaughJZhuYHuangY, et al. Performance and mechanical properties of various padding materials used in cadaveric side impact sled tests. SAE technical paper 920354, 1992.
93.
IrwinAWalilkoTCavanaughJ, et al. Displacement responses of the shoulder and thorax in lateral sled impacts. SAE technical paper 933124, 1993.
94.
BouquetRRametMBermondF, et al. Thoracic and human pelvis response to impact. In: Proceedings of the 14th international technical conference on enhanced safety of vehicles, Munich, Germany, 1994, pp.100–109.
95.
CesariDBouquetR. Comparison of hybrid III and human cadaver thorax deformation loaded by a thoracic belt. In: Proceedings of the 37th stapp car crash conference, 1994, paper no. °942209, pp.65–76.
96.
YoganandanNSkradeDPintarF, et al. Thoracic deformation contours in a frontal impact. In: Proceedings of the 35th stapp car crash conference, 1991, paper no. 912891. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
97.
YoganandanNPintarFSkradeD, et al. Thoracic biomechanics with air bag restraint. In: Proceedings of the 37th stapp car crash conference, 1993, paper no. 933121. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
98.
YoganandanNPintarFAKumaresanS, et al. Impact biomechanics of the human thorax-abdomen complex. Int J Crashworthiness1997; 2(2): 219–228.
99.
KemperARMcNallyCKennedyEA, et al. The influence of arm position on thoracic response in side impacts. Stapp Car Crash J2008; 52: 379–420.
100.
VezinPBruyere-GarnierKBermondF. Comparison of head and thorax cadaver and Hybrid III responses to a frontal sled deceleration for the validation of a car occupant mathematical model. In: 17th ESV conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001, paper no. 114.
101.
VezinPBruyere-GarnierKBermondF. Human response to a frontal sled deceleration. In: IRCOBI conference on the biomechanics of impact, Munich, Germany, 2002, pp.323–337.
102.
KuppaSMEppingerRH. Development of an improved thoracic injury criterion. Soc Automot Eng1998; 107: 2783–2797.
103.
CrandallJPilkeyWKloppG, et al. A comparison of two and three point belt restraint systems in Advances in occupant restraint technologies. In: Joint AAAM-IRCOB, 1994.
104.
CrandallJRBassCRPikeyWD, et al. Thoracic response and injury with belt, driver side airbag, and force limited belt restraint systems. Int J Crashworthiness1996; 2(1): 119–132.
105.
SchimkatHWeissnerRSchmidtG. A comparison between Volkswagen automatic restraint and three-point automatic belt on the basis of dummy and cadaver tests. In: Proceedings of the 18th stapp car crash conference, 1974, paper no. 741183.
106.
VianoDCCulverCC. Performance of a shoulder belt and knee restraint in barrier crash simulations. In: Proceedings of the 23th stapp car crash conference, 1979, paper no. 791006.
107.
NeatheryRFKroellCKMertzHJ. Prediction of Thoracic Injury from Dummy Responses. In: Proceedings of the 19th stapp car crash conference, 1975, pp.295–316. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
108.
StalnakerRLMcElhaneyJHRobertsVL, et al. Human torso response to blunt trauma. In: KingWFMertzHJ (eds) Human impact response. Boston, MA: Springer, 1973.
109.
MorganRMEppingerRHHaffnerMP, et al. Thoracic trauma assessment formulations for restrained drivers in simulated frontal impacts. In: Proceedings of the 38th stapp car crash conference, 1994, paper no. 942206. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
110.
KallierisDRizzettiAMatternR, et al. (eds). On the synergism of the driver air bag and the 3-point belt in frontal crashes. In: Proceedings of the 39th stapp car crash conference, San Diego, CA, 8–10 November 1995, paper no. 952700, pp.389–401.
111.
ShawGLessleyDJAshJL, et al. Side impact PMHS thoracic response with large-volume air bag. Traffic Inj Prev2014; 15(1): 40–47.
112.
BirCVianoDKingA. Development of biomechanical response corridors of the thorax to blunt ballistic impacts. J Biomech2004; 37(1): 73–79.
113.
WilhelmMR. A biomechanical assessment of female body armor. PhD Dissertation, College of Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 2003.
114.
DelotteJBehrMThollonL, et al. Pregnant woman and road safety: experimental crash test with post mortem human subject. Surg Radiol Anat2008; 30: 185–189.
115.
EckJV. Biomechanical response and abdominal injury due to blunt ballistic impact. PhD Dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 2006.
116.
JingwenHRuppJReedM. Focusing on vulnerable populations in crashes: recent advances in finite element human models for injury biomechanics. Res J Automot Saf Energy2012; 3: 295–307.
117.
SchoellSLWeaverAAVavalleNA, et al. Age- and sex-specific thorax finite element model development and simulation. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16(sup1): S57–S65.
118.
ZhangKCaoLFantaA, et al. An automated method to morph finite element whole-body human models with a wide range of stature and body shape for both men and women. J Biomech2017; 60(60): 253–260.
119.
PakWMengYSchapJ, et al. Development and validation of a finite element model of a small female pedestrian. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2020; 23(16): 1336–1346.
120.
HayesARGayzikFSMorenoDP, et al. Abdominal organ location, morphology, and rib coverage for the 5(th), 50(th), and 95(th) percentile males and females in the supine and seated posture using multi-modality imaging. Ann Adv Automot Med2013; 57: 111–122.
121.
AuriaultFThollonLPeresJ, et al. Virtual traumatology of pregnant women: the PRegnant car Occupant Model for impact simulations (PROMIS). J Biomech2014; 47(1): 207–213.
122.
YoganandanNBassCRVooL, et al. Male and female cervical spine biomechanics and anatomy: implication for scaling injury criteria. J Biomech Eng2017; 139(5): 10.1115/1.4036313. DOI: 10.1115/1.4036313.
123.
ChenSCLinCWLeePF, et al. Anthropometric characteristics in Taiwanese adults: age and gender differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 7712.
124.
Canaan RezendeFAQueiroz RibeiroAPrioreSE, et al. Anthropometric differences related to genders and age in the elderly. Nutr Hosp2015; 32(2): 757–764.
125.
AteşoğluSDenizMUsluAI. Evaluation of the morphological characteristic and sex differences of sternum by multi-detector computed tomography. Folia Morphol2018; 77(3): 489–497.
126.
LackoDHuysmansTParizelPM, et al. Evaluation of an anthropometric shape model of the human scalp. Appl Ergon2015; 48: 70–85.
127.
FullenkampAMRobinetteKMDaanenHA. Gender differences in NATO anthropometry and the implication for protective equipment. Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH Biomechanics Branch. 2008.
128.
VasavadaANDanarajJSiegmundGP. Head and neck anthropometry, vertebral geometry and neck strength in height-matched men and women. J Biomech2008; 41(1): 114–121.
129.
LynnerupNAstrupJGSejrsenB. Thickness of the human cranial diploe in relation to age, sex and general body build. Head Face Med2005; 1: 13–13.
130.
HolcombeSAWangSCGrotbergJB. The effect of age and demographics on rib shape. J Anat2017; 231(2): 229–247.
131.
BrumbelowMLJermakianJS. Injury risks and crashworthiness benefits for females and males: which differences are physiological?Traffic Inj Prev2022; 23(1): 11–16.
132.
NutbeamTWeekesLHeidariS, et al. Sex-disaggregated analysis of the injury patterns, outcome data and trapped status of major trauma patients injured in motor vehicle collisions: a prespecified analysis of the UK trauma registry (TARN). BMJ Open2022; 12(5): e061076.
133.
KahaneCJ. Injury vulnerability and effectiveness of occupant protection technologies for older occupants and women. Report no. DOT HS 811 766. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2013. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811766 (accessed 30 July 2023)
134.
NoEYAtwoodJRELeeE, et al. Female crash fatality risk relative to males for similar physical impacts. Report no. DOT HS 813 358. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022.
135.
AbtewMABoussuFBruniauxP. Dynamic impact protective body armour: a comprehensive appraisal on panel engineering design and its prospective materials. Def Technol2021; 17(6): 2027–2049.
136.
TungTY. Design criteria of type IV body armor for women. Oregon State University, 2008. p.4e104.
137.
SunWJinJHReedMP, et al. A method for developing biomechanical response corridors based on principal component analysis. J Biomech2016; 49: 3208–3215.
138.
NATO2018, Gender Perspectives in the Armed Forces - Summary of the National Reports. Summary of the National Reports of NATO Member and Partner Nations, chapter 1: Representation of Women and Men in the Armed Forces, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_132342.htm (2018).
139.
Onieva-GarcíaMÁMartínez-RuizVLardelli-ClaretP, et al. Gender and age differences in components of traffic-related pedestrian death rates: exposure, risk of crash and fatality rate. Inj Epidemiol2016; 3: 14.
140.
ZhouLLiYBaiS. A human-centered design optimization approach for robotic exoskeletons through biomechanical simulation. Robot Auton Syst2017; 91: 337–347.
141.
PutraIP. An average female head-neck finite element model with reflexive neck muscles. Thesis for the degree of licentiate of engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 2020.
142.
Corrales FabreMA. Development of elderly posture male and female finite element neck models and assessment of tissue-level response under impact loading. Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2020.
143.
ÖsthJMendoza-VazquezMSatoF, et al. A female head–neck model for rear impact simulations. J Biomech2017; 51: 49–56.
144.
ÖsthJMendoza-VazquezMSvenssonMY, et al. Development of a 50th Percentile Female Human Body Model, 2016. In: International research council on the biomechanics of injury, IRCOBI 2016, Malaga, Spain, 14–16 2016, paper no. 2235-3151, pp.573–575.
145.
ÖsthJBrolinKSvenssonMY, et al. A female ligamentous cervical spine finite element model validated for physiological loads. J Biomech Eng2016; 138(6): 061005.
UntaroiuCDarvishKCrandallJ, et al. A finite element model of the lower limb for simulating pedestrian impacts. Stapp Car Crash J2005; 49: 157–181.
148.
KatzenbergerMJAlbertDLAgnewAM, et al. Effects of sex, age, and two loading rates on the tensile material properties of human rib cortical bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 102: 103410.
149.
CuaABWilhelmKPMaibachHI. Elastic properties of human skin: relation to age, sex, and anatomical region. Arch Dermatol Res1990; 282(5): 283–288.
150.
MirzaaliMJSchwiedrzikJJThaiwichaiS, et al. Mechanical properties of cortical bone and their relationships with age, gender, composition and microindentation properties in the elderly. Bone2016; 93: 196–211.
151.
HiscoxLVMcGarryMDJSchwarbH, et al. Standard-space atlas of the viscoelastic properties of the human brain. Hum Brain Mapp2020; 41: 5282–5300.
152.
BoguszewskiDVCheungECJoshiNB, et al. Male-female differences in knee laxity and stiffness: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med2015; 43(12): 2982–2987.
153.
BoothGRCriptonPASiegmundGP. The lack of sex, age, and anthropometric diversity in neck biomechanical data. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2021; 9: 684217.
