MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2439783875

[Long-run eco-medical monitoring in North America using the Heart Wizard MARS-500 system].

2014· article· en· W2439783875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. I. Pugachev, R. M. Baevsky, Azalia P. Berseneva, Аnna G. Chernikova, Aleksey R. Baevsky, O. N. Isaeva

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWizardMaladaptationNosologyMars Exploration ProgramHeart rate variabilityComputer scienceMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Data sciencePsychologyPsychiatryWorld Wide WebHeart rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 2009 through to 2011, a long-run eco-medical monitoring was undertaken as a part of satellite project MARS-500. One of the objectives was field testing of innovative technologies of human functional state estimation. The monitoring protocol was a replica of that in the experiment with 520-day isolation. Heart Wizard Mars-500, a telemedical health estimation system based on heart rate variability analysis and pre-nosology diagnosis was trialed in the US and Canada. First and foremost the pre-nosology monitoring is aimed to estimate potential risks of maladaptation. Our results confirm diagnostic comprehensiveness of HRV analysis, particularly in long-run systematic health monitoring and when compared and contrasted with entries in the health and lifestyle questionnaire and functional test data. Heart Wizard Mars-500 is a simple and easy system for home use. Individual pre-nosology monitoring, initiation into own functional state and potential risk factors may inspire to change way of life and thus to improve health and life quality.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207