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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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