Liberal Oxygen with Unreliable Unpredictable Flowrate Is the Root Cause of Unexplained Physiological Events in Combat aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of unexplained physiological events (UPEs) reported by pilots of fighter jets across different fleets. The UPEs have resulted in grounding some types of aircraft, loss of airplanes, and even loss of life. Despite considerable research, no single agreed-upon root cause has been found that explains UPEs, and therefore no reliable corrective actions exist. The purpose of this review was to analyze the literature related to other industries in which artificial hyperoxic gas mixes are employed and similar adverse reports have been reported. Based on analysis of the literature, it is hypothesized that UPEs are caused by unlimited delivery of high-dose oxygen in excess of officially approved oxygen schedules in the presence of inadequate airflow rates, at a time when the positive pressure breathing feature of their oxygen regulator system is not used. During flight maneuvers such as climbs, turns, and descents, pulmonary vital capacity is impaired by G-maneuvers and oxygen- and G-induced atelectasis. At the same time, tidal volume is reduced by flight gear, and effective gas exchange is not supported by adequate ventilation. These factors combine to produce hypercarbia, respiratory acidosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, CO2 narcosis, and coma. In fact, reports from field data related to incidents in F-18S/H, showing that emergency oxygen did not correct the hypoxia-like symptoms including long-lasting periods of incapacitation and prolonged headaches, lend support to this hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".