MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208513514 · doi:10.1038/s41526-021-00172-6

4 Day in dry immersion reproduces partially the aging effect on the arteries as observed during 6 month spaceflight or confinement

2021· article· en· W3208513514 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle K. Greaves, Laurent Guillon, S. Besnard, Nastassia Navasiolava, Philippe Arbeille

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Microgravity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsSpaceflightMedicineHypokinesiaCardiologyCarotid arteriesInternal medicineFemoral arteryVentricleStroke volumeEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine whether 4 days of dry immersion (DI) induced similar arterial aging as spaceflight and to test the impact of thigh cuffs. Eighteen subjects underwent DI; nine wore thigh cuffs. Cardiac and arterial targets were assessed by ultrasound. No significant differences were found between the groups. The left ventricle volume, stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction decreased with DI (p < 0.001). Carotid distensibility reduced (p < 0.05), carotid to femoral arterial tree became stiffer in 33% of the subjects, and femoral artery intima media thickness increased (p < 0.05). A reduction in plasma volume is likely to have caused the observed cardiac changes, whereas the arterial wall changes are probably best explained by hypokinesia and/or environmental stress. These changes are similar but lower in amplitude than those observed in spaceflight and mimic the natural aging effect on earth. The daytime-worn thigh cuffs had no acute or chronic impact on these arterial-focused measurements.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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