Influence of Space Environments in System Physiologic and Molecular Integrity: Redefining the Concept of Human Health beyond the Boundary Conditions of Earth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space travel since the 1960s has led to a number of physiological alterations to homeostasis in astronauts. Extensive variation in the pattern of responses observed has led a concerted effort to develop countermeasures to overcome such changes and restore homeostasis, and thus “health” is defined as more “Earth-like”. These adaptations to a space environment by a species which evolved and normally exists in the 1 g environment, the geomagnetic field, and background radiation of Earth are viewed as threats to health as defined by the conditions of Earth. Exposure to space can lead to alterations in genomic stability and epigenetic signatures, alterations which could redefine “health” and responses to risks for loss of health for those who will return to Earth. In contrast, in the future individuals born in non-Earth space environments will likely develop an integrated metabolic set point defined by those conditions. They will thus be shaped by both the local environments, and space-associated genomic/epigenomic alterations to their parents. Therefore, such an altered set point for those born and raised in non-Earth space environments will potentially have physiological and molecular consequences which may lead to either new evolutionary adaptation, or to compromise of long term health due to drastically altered set points for integrated physiologic function which is at odds with the evolutionary history of humans. The implications of the two options will be critical for defining “health” in altered environments encountered during space ventures, as well as providing insights into the regulation of human integrity at the physiological level. Therefore, the definition of “health” is dependent on the boundary conditions surrounding development and maturation, and is a dynamic concept.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".