Characterizing the effect of exposure to microgravity on anemia: more space is worse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of space travel have renewed importance with space tourism and plans for long-term missions to the moon and Mars. The study of space anemia is limited by the availability of subjects and extreme conditions. An approach using the accumulated data on human space flight may characterize space anemia. A total of 17 336 hemoglobin (Hb) concentration measures from 721 space missions and controls were used to study acute and long-term effects of duration of exposure to space on Hb decrement. Nearly half of astronauts (48%) landing after long duration missions were anemic. Returning to Earth revealed Hb decrements whose magnitude and time to recover were dependent on exposure to space: -0.61 g/dL (4%), -0.82 g/dL (5%) and -1.66 g/dL (11%) of preflight Hb for mean exposure to space of 5.4, 11.5, and 145 days, respectively. Astronauts returning from a mean 5.4 days in space took 24 days to return to preflight Hb while astronauts 11.5 to 145 days in space took 49 days. Negative effects of microgravity on Hb persisted throughout female and male astronauts' terrestrial lives (-0.001 and -0.002 mg/dL Hb respectively) for every day spent in space (both P < .05). The negative effect of exposure to space was not overcome by a statistically significant effect of being an astronaut compared to controls. Exposure to space showed a dose-response relationship with acute and chronic Hb decrements. Space anemia contributes to the deconditioning of astronauts returning to Earth, and needs to be considered for space travel to other planets, space tourism and for the care of bedridden patients who present similar changes as astronauts.
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".