Bone health in spacefaring rodents and primates: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals in space exploration studies serve both as a model for human physiology and as a means to understand the physiological effects of microgravity. To quantify the microgravity-induced changes to bone health in animals, we systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, and NASA Technical reports. We selected 40 papers focusing on the bone health of 95 rats, 61 mice, and 9 rhesus monkeys from 22 space missions. The percentage difference from ground control in rodents was -24.1% [Confidence interval: -43.4, -4.9] for trabecular bone volume fraction and -5.9% [-8.0, -3.8] for the cortical area. In primates, trabecular bone volume fraction was lower by -25.2% [-35.6, -14.7] in spaceflight animals compared to GC. Bone formation indices in rodent trabecular and cortical bone were significantly lower in microgravity. In contrast, osteoclast numbers were not affected in rats and were variably affected in mice. Thus, microgravity induces bone deficits in rodents and primates likely through the suppression of bone formation.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".