Abstract 18672: Effects of Prolonged Space Flight on Cardiac Structure and Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: “Cardiovascular deconditioning” induced by bed rest, a model for spaceflight, causes cardiac atrophy of ~1%/wk in men and women. Data from small numbers of astronauts NOT performing any exercise countermeasures suggest the rate of atrophy for spaceflight may be even greater. However, cardiac morphology has not been assessed using high resolution techniques before and after prolonged space flight in the International Space Station (ISS) era. Methods: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess left and right ventricular volumes and masses, and fibrosis by late gadolinium enhancement was performed within 2 months before and 3 days after 4-6 months in space aboard the ISS on 13 astronauts. Results: Eight men and 5 women (mean age 49.5 years) astronauts participated (mean ISS duration 153 days). All performed regular and intensive combined endurance and strength training countermeasures inflight, and most did so at a higher intensity than they did pre-flight. No significant differences in left ventricular or right ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic volumes were observed (Table). Both right and left ventricular mass was preserved, and supine stroke volume was maintained. No evidence of myocardial fibrosis was seen in 11 astronauts who had late gadolinium enhancement performed before and after space flight. Conclusions: No deleterious effects of prolonged space flight were seen on cardiac structure and function. These results suggest that an appropriate astronaut exercise regimen may counteract the effects of “cardiovascular deconditioning” during prolonged space flight up to 6 months duration.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".