Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma in Weightlessness: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examines for fluid in gravitationally dependent regions. There is no prior experience with this technique in weightlessness, such as on the International Space Station, where sonography is currently the only diagnostic imaging tool. STUDY DESIGN: A ground-based (1 g) porcine model for sonography was developed. We examined both the feasibility and the comparative performance of the FAST examination in parabolic flight. Sonographic detection and fluid behavior were evaluated in four animals during alternating weightlessness (0 g) and hypergravity (1.8 g) periods. During flight, boluses of fluid were incrementally introduced into the peritoneal cavity. Standardized sonographic windows were recorded. Postflight, the video recordings were divided into 169 20-second segments for subsequent interpretation by 12 blinded ultrasonography experts. Reviewers first decided whether a video segment was of sufficient diagnostic quality to analyze (determinate). Determinate segments were then analyzed as containing or not containing fluid. A probit regression model compared the probability of a positive fluid diagnosis to actual fluid levels (0 to 500 mL) under both 0-g and 1.8-g conditions. RESULTS: The in-flight sonographers found real-time scanning and interpretation technically similar to that of terrestrial conditions, as long as restraint was maintained. On blinded review, 80% of the recorded ultrasound segments were considered determinate. The best sensitivity for diagnosis in 0 g was found to be from the subhepatic space, with probability of a positive fluid diagnosis ranging from 9% (no fluid) to 51% (500 mL fluid). CONCLUSIONS: The FAST examination is technically feasible in weightlessness, and merits operational consideration for clinical contingencies in space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".