{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022717343818261248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007426823940585408, 'mean_word_length': 5.13941018766756, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An investigation of elderly occupant injury risks based on anthropometric changes compared to young counterparts.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to investigate the difference between elderly and young occupant injury risks using human body finite element modeling in frontal impacts.


METHODS
Two elderly male occupant models (representative age 70-80 years) were developed using the Global Human Body Consortium (GHBMC) 50th percentile as the baseline model. In the first elderly model (EM-1), material property changes were incorporated, and in the second elderly model (EM-2), material and anthropometric changes were incorporated. Material properties were based on literature. The baseline model was morphed to elderly anthropometry for EM-2. The three models were simulated in a frontal crash vehicle environment at 56 km/h. Responses from the two elderly and baseline models were compared with cadaver experimental data in thoracic, abdominal, and frontal impacts. Correlation and analysis scores were used for correlation with experimental data. The probabilities of head, neck, and thoracic injuries were assessed.


RESULTS
The elderly models showed a good correlation with experimental responses. The elderly EM-1 had higher risk of head and brain injuries compared to the elderly EM-2 and baseline GHBMC models. The elderly EM-2 demonstrated higher risk of neck, chest, and abdominal injuries than the elderly EM-1 and baseline models.


CONCLUSIONS
The study investigated injury risks of two elderly occupants and compared to a young occupant in frontal crashes. The change in the material properties alone (EM-1) suggested that elderly occupants may be vulnerable to a greater risk of head and thoracic injuries, whereas change in both anthropometric and material properties (EM-2) suggested that elderly occupants may be vulnerable to a greater risk of thoracic and neck injuries. The second elderly model results were in better agreement with field injury data from the literature; thus, both anthropometric and material properties should be considered when assessing the injury risks of elderly occupants. The elderly models developed in this study can be used to simulate different impact conditions and determine injury risks for this group of our population.