MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220919620 · doi:10.1161/circresaha.121.319843

Leveraging Spaceflight to Advance Cardiovascular Research on Earth

2022· review· en· W4220919620 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica M. Scott, Jana Stoudemire, Lianne B. Dolan, Meghan E. Downs

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSpaceflightAstrobiologyMedicineEngineeringBiologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The direct (eg, radiation, microgravity) and indirect (eg, lifestyle perturbations) effects of spaceflight extend across multiple systems resulting in whole-organism cardiovascular deconditioning. For over 50 years, National Aeronautics and Space Administration has continually enhanced a countermeasures program designed to characterize and offset the adverse cardiovascular consequences of spaceflight. In this review, we provide a historical overview of research evaluating the effects of spaceflight on cardiovascular health in astronauts and outline mechanisms underpinning spaceflight-related cardiovascular alterations. We also discuss how spaceflight could be leveraged for aging, industry, and model systems such as human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes, organoid, and organ-on-a-chip technologies. Finally, we outline the increasing opportunities for scientists and clinicians to engage in cardiovascular research in space and on Earth.

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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations47
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation ResearchSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207