These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36150234)

  • 21. Age and gender differences in time to collision at braking from the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.
    Montgomery J; Kusano KD; Gabler HC
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2014; 15 Suppl 1():S15-20. PubMed ID: 25307380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Estimate of potential benefit for Europe of fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrian protection to passenger cars.
    Edwards M; Nathanson A; Wisch M
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2014; 15 Suppl 1():S173-82. PubMed ID: 25307384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A rear-end collision risk assessment model based on drivers' collision avoidance process under influences of cell phone use and gender-A driving simulator based study.
    Li X; Yan X; Wu J; Radwan E; Zhang Y
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Dec; 97():1-18. PubMed ID: 27565040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Improving the safety relevance of automatic emergency braking testing programs: An examination of common characteristics of police-reported rear-end crashes in the United States.
    Kidd DG
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2022; 23(sup1):S137-S142. PubMed ID: 35767826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Assessment of Integrated Pedestrian Protection Systems with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Passive Safety Components.
    Edwards M; Nathanson A; Carroll J; Wisch M; Zander O; Lubbe N
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2015; 16 Suppl 1():S2-S11. PubMed ID: 26027971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Pedestrian safety in an automated driving environment: Calibrating and evaluating the responsibility-sensitive safety model.
    Wang X; Ye C; Quddus M; Morris A
    Accid Anal Prev; 2023 Nov; 192():107265. PubMed ID: 37619318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Real life safety benefits of increasing brake deceleration in car-to-pedestrian accidents: Simulation of Vacuum Emergency Braking.
    Jeppsson H; Östling M; Lubbe N
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Feb; 111():311-320. PubMed ID: 29257980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects on crash risk of automatic emergency braking systems for pedestrians and bicyclists.
    Kullgren A; Amin K; Tingvall C
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2023; 24(sup1):S111-S115. PubMed ID: 37267014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Intersection AEB implementation strategies for left turn across path crashes.
    Sander U; Lubbe N; Pietzsch S
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2019; 20(sup1):S119-S125. PubMed ID: 31381448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Differential benefit of sensor system field-of-view and range in pedestrian automated emergency braking systems.
    Haus SH; Sherony R; Gabler HC
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2021; 22(sup1):S111-S115. PubMed ID: 34469208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Analysis of car driver responses to avoid car-to-cyclist perpendicular collisions based on drive recorder data and driving simulator experiments.
    Zhao Y; Miyahara T; Mizuno K; Ito D; Han Y
    Accid Anal Prev; 2021 Feb; 150():105862. PubMed ID: 33276185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Analysis of Driver Evasive Maneuvering Prior to Intersection Crashes Using Event Data Recorders.
    Scanlon JM; Kusano KD; Gabler HC
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2015; 16 Suppl 2():S182-9. PubMed ID: 26436230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Can non-crash naturalistic driving data be an alternative to crash data for use in virtual assessment of the safety performance of automated emergency braking systems?
    Olleja P; Bärgman J; Lubbe N
    J Safety Res; 2022 Dec; 83():139-151. PubMed ID: 36481005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effectiveness of front crash prevention systems in reducing large truck real-world crash rates.
    Teoh ER
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2021; 22(4):284-289. PubMed ID: 33769151
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Fuzzy Surrogate Safety Metrics for real-time assessment of rear-end collision risk. A study based on empirical observations.
    Mattas K; Makridis M; Botzoris G; Kriston A; Minarini F; Papadopoulos B; Re F; Rognelund G; Ciuffo B
    Accid Anal Prev; 2020 Dec; 148():105794. PubMed ID: 33032008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of Expected Crash and Injury Reduction from Production Forward Collision and Lane Departure Warning Systems.
    Kusano KD; Gabler HC
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2015; 16 Suppl 2():S109-14. PubMed ID: 26436219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Integrated assessment of pedestrian head impact protection in testing secondary safety and autonomous emergency braking.
    Searson DJ; Anderson RW; Hutchinson TP
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Feb; 63():1-8. PubMed ID: 24246294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Research on safety of the intended functionality of automobile AEB perception system in typical dangerous scenarios of two-wheelers.
    Zhou H; Li X; He X; Li P; Xiao L; Zhang D
    Accid Anal Prev; 2022 Aug; 173():106709. PubMed ID: 35597224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Are front crash prevention systems less effective at preventing rear-end crashes where trucks and motorcycles are struck?
    Cicchino JB; Kidd DG
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2024; 25(3):440-444. PubMed ID: 38466620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Field testing the applicability of motorcycle autonomous emergency braking (MAEB) during pre-crash avoidance maneuver.
    Lucci C; Baldanzini N; Savino G
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2021; 22(3):246-251. PubMed ID: 33709844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.