Models to Study Gravitational Biology of Mammalian Reproduction1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian reproduction evolved within Earth's 1-g gravitational field. As we move closer to the reality of space habitation, there is growing scientific interest in how different gravitational states influence reproduction in mammals. Habitation of space and extended spaceflight missions require prolonged exposure to decreased gravity (hypogravity, i.e., weightlessness). Lift-off and re-entry of the spacecraft are associated with exposure to increased gravity (hypergravity). Existing data suggest that spaceflight is associated with a constellation of changes in reproductive physiology and function. However, limited spaceflight opportunities and confounding effects of various nongravitational factors associated with spaceflight (i.e., radiation, stress) have led to the development of ground-based models for studying the effects of altered gravity on biological systems. Human bed rest and rodent hindlimb unloading paradigms are used to study exposure to hypogravity. Centrifugation is used to study hypergravity. Here, we review the results of spaceflight and ground-based models of altered gravity on reproductive physiology. Studies utilizing ground-based models that simulate hyper- and hypogravity have produced reproductive results similar to those obtained from spaceflight and are contributing new information on biological responses across the gravity continuum, thereby confirming the appropriateness of these models for studying reproductive responses to altered gravity and the underlying mechanisms of these responses. Together, these unique tools are yielding new insights into the gravitational biology of reproduction in mammals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".