Manual Suturing Quality at Acceleration Levels Equivalent to Spaceflight and a Lunar Base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous wounds, either from injuries or as a result of surgical incisions, are a likely possibility that future space medicine specialists will need to address. While there has been some prior study of manual suturing in microgravity (0 G), there has been no study of manual suturing in reduced gravity consistent with that of the Moon. METHODS: Six separate operators with varying degrees of surgical experience (four trained surgeons, and two non-surgeons) attempted to manually suture wound phantoms during the reduced gravity phases of parabolic flight simulating either 0 G or lunar gravity (0.16 G). Each operator subjectively evaluated the difficulty and relative speed in performing the same task in different environments, serving as their own internal control. There were 20-s periods of 1 G that were carefully timed for each surgeon to compare to the approximately 20 s available for each parabola of either 0 G or 0.16 G. RESULTS: Six periods of 1 G were used as controls to perform manual suturing of the phantoms. There were 51 parabolas of 0 G and 67 parabolas of 0.16 G performed by the six operators. As judged subjectively by the operators themselves and by group inspection of the sutured phantoms, there was no qualitative difference in the adequacy of wound closure as judged by suture placement accuracy and wound coaptation. There was consensus, though, that suturing in microgravity was significantly slower, as has been noted in more complex surgical studies. DISCUSSION: The technical aspects of wound management during exploration-class missions in prolonged microgravity or lunar missions with reduced gravity (0.16 G) will likely not present challenges beyond those faced in addressing the tremendous logistical and training obstacles to providing experienced and equipped surgeons on-board such a mission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".