Inflight leg cuff test does not identify the risk for orthostatic hypotension after long-duration spaceflight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Landing day symptoms from orthostatic hypotension after prolonged spaceflight can be debilitating, but severity of these symptoms can be unpredictable and highly individual. We tested the hypothesis that an impaired baroreflex response to an inflight leg cuff test could predict orthostatic intolerance on return to Earth. Eight male astronauts (44 ± 7 years of age (mean ± SD); mean mission length: 167 ± 12 days) participated in a standardized supine-to-sit-to-stand test (5 min–30s–3 min) pre- and postflight, and a 3 min thigh cuff occlusion test pre- and inflight with continuous monitoring of heart rate and arterial blood pressure. The arterial baroreflex was not changed inflight as shown by similar reductions in mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to leg cuff deflation (preflight −19 ± 2 mmHg vs. inflight −18 ± 5 mmHg). With the sit/stand test, the nadir of MAP was lower postflight (−17 ± 9 mmHg) than preflight (−11 ± 6 mmHg, p < 0.05). A greater increase in heart rate (25 ± 7; 16 ± 3 bpm) and decrease in stroke volume (−24 ± 11; −6 ± 4 mL) occurred with sit/stand postflight than leg cuffs inflight (p < 0.001). Inflight testing was influenced by elevated cardiac output resulting in a smaller drop in total peripheral resistance. Two of eight subjects exhibited orthostatic hypotension during the postflight stand test; their responses were not predicted by the inflight leg cuff deflation test. These results suggest that the baroreflex response examined by inflight leg cuff deflation was not a reliable indicator of postflight stand responses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".