Effects of Individualized Centrifugation Training on Orthostatic Tolerance in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Exposure to artificial gravity (AG) at different G loads and durations on human centrifuges has been shown to improve orthostatic tolerance in men. However, the effects on women and of an individual-specific AG training protocol on tolerance are not known. METHODS: We examined the effects of 90 minutes of AG vs. 90 minutes of supine rest on the orthostatic tolerance limit (OTL), using head up tilt and lower body negative pressure until presyncope of 7 men and 5 women. Subjects were placed in the centrifuge nacelle while instrumented and after one-hour they underwent either: 1) AG exposure (90 minutes) in supine position [protocol 1, artificial gravity exposure], or 2) lay supine on the centrifuge for 90 minutes in supine position without AG exposure [protocol 2, control]. The AG training protocol was individualized, by first determining each subject's maximum tolerable G load, and then exposing them to 45 minutes of ramp training at sub-presyncopal levels. RESULTS: Both sexes had improved OTL (14 minutes vs 11 minutes, p < 0.0019) following AG exposure. When cardiovascular (CV) variables at presyncope in the control test were compared with the CV variables at the same tilt-test time (isotime) during post-centrifuge, higher blood pressure, stroke volume and cardiac output and similar heart rates and peripheral resistance were found post-centrifuge. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a better-maintained central circulating blood volume post-centrifugation across gender and provide an integrated insight into mechanisms of blood pressure regulation and the possible implementation of in-flight AG countermeasure profiles during spaceflights.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".