↓ Skip to main content

Forensic reconstruction of two military combat related shooting incidents using an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Forensic reconstruction of two military combat related shooting incidents using an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00414-018-1802-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Mahoney, Debra Carr, Karl Harrison, Ruth McGuire, Alan Hepper, Daniel Flynn, Russ J. Delaney, Iain Gibb

Abstract

Six synthetic head models wearing ballistic protective helmets were used to recreate two military combat-related shooting incidents (three per incident, designated 'Incident 1' and 'Incident 2'). Data on the events including engagement distances, weapon and ammunition types was collated by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. The models were shot with 7.62 × 39 mm ammunition downloaded to mean impact velocities of 581 m/s (SD 3.5 m/s) and 418 m/s (SD 8 m/s), respectively, to simulate the engagement distances. The damage to the models was assessed using CT imaging and dissection by a forensic pathologist experienced in reviewing military gunshot wounds. The helmets were examined by an MoD engineer experienced in ballistic incident analysis. Damage to the helmets was consistent with that seen in real incidents. Fracture patterns and CT imaging on two of the models for Incident 1 (a frontal impact) were congruent with the actual incident being modelled. The results for Incident 2 (a temporoparietal impact) produced realistic simulations of tangential gunshot injury but were less representative of the scenario being modelled. Other aspects of the wounds produced also exhibited differences. Further work is ongoing to develop the models for greater ballistic injury fidelity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 12 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 12 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2021.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#784
of 2,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,004
of 332,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#17
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,088 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.