Development of Requirements Analysis Tool for Medical Autonomy in Long-Duration Space Exploration Missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving resources for medical autonomy of astronauts in prolonged space missions, such as a Mars mission, requires not only technology development, but also decision-making support systems. The Advanced Crew Medical System - Medical Condition Requirements study, funded by the Canadian Space Agency, aimed to create knowledge content and a scenario-based query capability to support medical autonomy of astronauts. The key objective of this study was to create a prototype tool for identifying medical infrastructure requirements in terms of medical knowledge, skills and materials. A multicriteria decision-making method was used to prioritize the highest risk medical events anticipated in a long-term space mission. Starting with those medical conditions, event sequence diagrams (ESDs) were created in the form of decision trees where the entry point is the diagnosis and the end points are the predicted outcomes (full recovery, partial recovery, or death/severe incapacitation). The ESD formalism was adapted to characterize and compare possible outcomes of medical conditions as a function of available medical knowledge, skills, and supplies in a given mission scenario. An extensive literature review was performed and summarized in a medical condition database. A PostgreSQL relational database was created to allow query-based evaluation of health outcome metrics with different medical infrastructure scenarios. Critical decision points, skill and medical supply requirements, and probable health outcomes were compared across chosen scenarios. The three medical conditions with the highest risk rank were acute coronary syndrome, sepsis, and stroke. Our efforts demonstrate the utility of this approach and provide insight into the effort required to develop appropriate content for the range of medical conditions that may arise.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".