Efficacy of fluid loading as a countermeasure to the hemodynamic and hormonal changes of 28-h head-down bed rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After exposure to microgravity, or head-down bed rest (HDBR), fluid loading is often used with the intent of increasing plasma volume and maintaining mean arterial pressure during orthostatic stress. Nine men (aged 18-32 years) underwent three randomized trials with lower body negative pressure (LBNP) before and after: (1) 4-h of sitting with fluid loading (1 g sodium chloride/125 mL of water starting 2.5-h before LBNP), (2) 28-h of 6-degree HDBR without fluid loading, and (3) 28-h of 6-degree HDBR with fluid loading. LBNP was progressive from 0 to -40 mmHg. After 28-h HDBR, fluid loading did not protect against the loss of plasma volume (-280 ± 64 mL without fluid loading, -207 ± 86 with fluid loading, P = 0.472) nor did it protect against a drop of mean arterial pressure (P = 0.017) during LBNP (Post-28 h HDBR response from 0 to -40 mmHg LBNP: 88 ± 4 to 85 ± 4 mmHg without fluid loading and 93 ± 4 to 88 ± 5 mmHg with fluid loading, P = 0.557 between trials). However, fluid loading did protect against the loss of stroke volume index and central venous pressure observed after 28-h HDBR. Fluid loading also attenuated the increase of angiotensin II seen after 28-h HDBR and throughout the LBNP protocol (Post-28 h HDBR response from 0 to -40 mmHg LBNP: 16.6 ± 3.4 to 23.7 ± 5.0 pg/mL without fluid loading and 6.1 ± 0.8 to 12.2 ± 2.3 pg/mL with fluid loading, P < 0.001 between trials). Our results indicate that fluid loading did not protect against plasma volume loss due to HDBR or change blood pressure responses to LBNP. However, changes in central venous pressure, stroke volume and fluid regulatory hormones could potentially influence longer duration studies and those with more severe orthostatic stress.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".