Bone strength and composition in spacefaring rodents: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the effects of space travel on bone of experimental animals provides unique advantages, including the ability to perform post-mortem analysis and mechanical testing. To synthesize the available data to assess how much and how consistently bone strength and composition parameters are affected by spaceflight, we systematically identified studies reporting bone health in spacefaring animals from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, and NASA Technical reports. Previously, we reported the effect of spaceflight on bone architecture and turnover in rodents and primates. For this study, we selected 28 articles reporting bone strength and composition in 60 rats and 60 mice from 17 space missions ranging from 7 to 33 days in duration. Whole bone mechanical indices were significantly decreased in spaceflight rodents, with the percent difference between spaceflight and ground control animals for maximum load of -15.24% [Confidence interval: -22.32, -8.17]. Bone mineral density and calcium content were significantly decreased in spaceflight rodents by -3.13% [-4.96, -1.29] and -1.75% [-2.97, -0.52] respectively. Thus, large deficits in bone architecture (6% loss in cortical area identified in a previous study) as well as changes in bone mass and tissue composition likely lead to bone strength reduction in spaceflight animals.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".