Crew Autonomy During Simulated Medical Event Management on Long Duration Space Exploration Missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim was to investigate crew performance during medical emergencies with and without ground-support from a flight surgeon located at mission control. BACKGROUND: There are gaps in knowledge regarding the potential for unanticipated in-flight medical events to affect crew health and capacity, and potentially compromise mission success. Additionally, ground support may be impaired or periodically absent during long duration missions. METHOD: We reviewed video recordings of 16 three-person flight crews each managing four unique medical events in a fully immersive spacecraft simulator. Crews were randomized to two conditions: with and without telemedical flight surgeon (FS) support. We assessed differences in technical performance, behavioral skills, and cognitive load between groups. RESULTS: Crews with FS support performed better clinically, were rated higher on technical skills, and completed more clinical tasks from the medical checklists than crews without FS support. Crews with FS support also had better behavioral/non-technical skills (information exchange) and reported significantly lower cognitive demand during the medical event scenarios on the NASA-TLX scale, particularly in mental demand and temporal demand. There was no significant difference between groups in time to treat or in objective measures of cognitive demand derived from heart rate variability and electroencephalography. CONCLUSION: Medical checklists are necessary but not sufficient to support high levels of autonomous crew performance in the absence of real-time flight surgeon support. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include developing ground-based and in-flight training countermeasures; informing policy regarding autonomous spaceflight, and design of autonomous clinical decision support systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".