MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113175795 · doi:10.1038/s41526-020-00127-3

Reviving lower body negative pressure as a countermeasure to prevent pathological vascular and ocular changes in microgravity

2020· review· en· W3113175795 on OpenAlexaff
Katie M. Harris, Lonnie G. Petersen, Tobias Weber

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Microgravity · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionEuropean Space AgencyNovo Nordisk FondenNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCountermeasurePathologicalMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitigation of spaceflight-related pathologies such as spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome (SANS) and the recently discovered risk of venous thrombosis must happen before deep space exploration can occur. Lower body negative pressure (LBNP) can simulate gravitational stress during spaceflight that is likely to counteract SANS and venous thrombosis, but the ideal dose and method of delivery have yet to be determined. We undertook a review of current LBNP literature and conducted a gap analysis to determine the steps needed to adapt LBNP for in-flight use. We found that to use LBNP in flight, it must be adapted to long time duration/low pressure use that should be compatible with crew activities. A lack of understanding of the etiology of the pathologies that LBNP can counteract hinders the application of LBNP as a countermeasure during spaceflight. Future research should aim at filling the knowledge gaps outlined in this review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj MicrogravitySame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207