MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966184749 · doi:10.1097/phm.0b013e31802b8d09

Space Flight Rehabilitation

2006· review· en· W1966184749 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael W. Payne, David R. Williams, Guy Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Space AgencySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpace medicinePhysical therapyOrthostatic intoleranceWeightlessnessOrthostatic vital signsAviation medicinePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weightless environment of space imposes specific physiologic adaptations on healthy astronauts. On return to Earth, these adaptations manifest as physical impairments that necessitate a period of rehabilitation. Physiologic changes result from unloading in microgravity and highly correlate with those seen in relatively immobile terrestrial patient populations such as spinal cord, geriatric, or deconditioned bed-rest patients. Major postflight impairments requiring rehabilitation intervention include orthostatic intolerance, bone demineralization, muscular atrophy, and neurovestibular symptoms. Space agencies are preparing for extended-duration missions, including colonization of the moon and interplanetary exploration of Mars. These longer-duration flights will result in more severe and more prolonged disability, potentially beyond the point of safe return to Earth. This paper will review and discuss existing space rehabilitation plans for major postflight impairments. Evidence-based rehabilitation interventions are imperative not only to facilitate return to Earth but also to extend the safe duration of exposure to a physiologically hostile microgravity environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207