Visual changes after space flight: is it really caused by increased intracranial tension? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome (SANS) was linked to increased intracranial pressure (ICP) attributable to the combined effects of microgravity and environmental conditions encountered during spaceflight. Microgravity countermeasures as lower body negative pressure (LBNP) are potential interventions for SANS. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive qualitative analysis of literature contrasting simulation and spaceflight studies, focusing on the pathophysiology of SANS, and highlighting gaps in current knowledge. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched PubMed electronic database for English primary research published until February 2019 discussing intracranial changes in spaceflight or simulated microgravity, excluding animal and experimental studies. Two authors screened all the abstracts with a third author resolving disagreements. The full-text manuscripts were analyzed in pilot-tested tables. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nineteen studies were reviewed; 13 simulation, and two out of six spaceflight studies were prospective. ICP changes were investigated in 11 simulation studies, where eight demonstrated a significant increase in ICP after variable periods of head-down tilt. three showed a significant increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) in conjunction with ICP elevation. With increasing ambient CO2: one showed an increase in IOP without further increase in ICP, while another showed a slight further decrease in ICP. LBNP demonstrated no significant effect on ICP in one and a decrease thereof in another study. After spaceflight, increased ICP on lumbar puncture was demonstrated in five studies. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to microgravity increases ICP possibly precipitating ocular changes. Whether other factors come into play is the subject of investigation. Further randomized studies and methods of direct ICP measurement during spaceflight are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".