MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200418115 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.774805

Case Report: No Evidence of Intracranial Fluid Shifts in an Astronaut Following an Aborted Launch

2021· article· en· W4200418115 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather R. McGregor, Kathleen E. Hupfeld, Ofer Pasternak, Scott J. Wood, Ajitkumar P. Mulavara, Jacob J. Bloomberg, T. Nick Hague, Rachael D. Seidler

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spaceflight induces lasting enlargement of the brain's ventricles as well as intracranial fluid shifts. These intracranial fluid shifts have been attributed to prolonged microgravity exposure, however, the potential effects of hypergravity exposure during launch and landing have yet to be elucidated. Here we describe a case report of a Crewmember who experienced an Aborted Launch ("CAL"). CAL's launch and landing experience was dissociated from prolonged microgravity exposure. Using MRI, we show that hypergravity exposure during the aborted launch did not induce lasting ventricular enlargement or intracranial fluid shifts resembling those previously reported with spaceflight. This case study therefore rules out hypergravity during launch and landing as a contributing factor to previously reported long-lasting intracranial fluid changes following spaceflight.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207