The role of oxygen and the Goldilocks range in the development of cataracts induced by space radiation in US astronauts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the role that oxygen levels in US spacecraft from 1961 to 1998 have on the development of cataracts induced by space radiation in astronauts and whether oxygen levels are well accounted for in experimental studies examining cataractogenesis. The first epidemiological report in 2001 linked an increased risk of the primary types of cataracts, and nuclear cataract alone, for astronauts with higher lens doses. However, later studies of US astronauts in 2009 and 2012 reported a higher risk of cortical cataract and posterior subcapsular cataract, but not for nuclear cataract. Firstly, it is postulated that the high oxygen level atmospheres of spacecraft employed before 1976 were a factor in promoting nuclear cataract. The high oxygen levels of hyperbaric oxygen therapy are reportedly associated with nuclear cataract, and the low intraocular oxygen levels of diabetic patients are possibly linked to their higher risk of posterior subcapsular cataract and cortical cataract. Secondly, it is hypothesized that the normal hypoxic environment of the lens and lens epithelial cells (LECs), and all stem/progenitor cells in general, have an optimal Goldilocks range of oxygen levels. Too high a lenticular oxygen level increases oxidative stress and radiosensitivity due to the oxygen effect. Whereas too low an oxygen tension also increases oxidative stress and disrupts LEC differentiation. Even so, a focused literature search of the PubMed database of in vitro experiments with LECs shows that studies rarely account for the hypoxic state of the normal lens, whether ionizing radiation is a factor or not. It is therefore recommended that ocular physioxic levels should therefore be considered when designing in vitro studies to better understand the progression of cataractogenesis on long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".