MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808441920 · doi:10.4236/jbise.2018.116010

Are We Learning as Much as Possible from Spaceflight to Better Understand Health and Risks to Health on Earth, as Well as in Space?

2018· article· en· W2808441920 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Science and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsSpaceflightSpace environmentHuman spaceflightSpace (punctuation)Human healthSpace explorationLow earth orbitAstrobiologySpace suitInternational Space StationAeronauticsSpace radiationEarth (classical element)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)SimulationAerospace engineeringBusinessSatelliteEngineeringBiologyMedicinePhysicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review is to discuss the changes in human biology and physiology that occur when humans, who evolved on Earth for millions of years, now are subjected to space flight for extended periods of time, and how detailing such changes associated with space flight could help better understand risks for loss of health on Earth. Space programs invest heavily in the selection and training of astronauts. They also are investing in maintaining the health of astronauts, both for extensive stays in low earth orbit on ISS, and in preparation for deep space missions in the future. This effort is critical for the success of such missions as the N is small and the tasks needed to be performed in a hostile environment are complex and demanding. However, space is a unique environment, devoid of many of the “boundary conditions” that shaped human evolution (e.g. 1 g environment, magnetic fields, background radiation, oxygen, water, etc). Therefore, for humans to be successful in space, we need to learn to adapt and minimize the impact of an altered environment on human health. Conversely, we can also learn considerably from this altered environment for life on earth. The question is, are we getting the maximal information from life in space to learn about like on earth? The answer is likely No, and as such, our “Return on Investment” is not as great as it could be. Even though the number of astronauts is not large, what we can learn from them could help shape new questions for research focused on health for those on earth, as well is contribute to “precision health” from the study of astronaut diversity. This latter effort would contribute to both the health of astronauts identifying risks, as well as contribute to health on earth via better understanding of the human genome and epigenome, as well as factors contributing to risk for diseases on earth, particularly as individuals age and regulatory systems become altered. Better use of the International Space Station, and similar platforms in the future, could provide critical insights in aging-associated risks for loss of health on Earth, as well as promote new approaches to using precision medicine to overcome threats to health while in space. To achieve this goal will likely require advanced approaches to collecting such information and use of more systems biology, systems physiology approaches to integrate the information.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.311 · 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