Human Health during Space Travel: State-of-the-Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of human space travel is in the midst of a dramatic revolution. Upcoming missions are looking to push the boundaries of space travel, with plans to travel for longer distances and durations than ever before. Both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and several commercial space companies (e.g., Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic) have already started the process of preparing for long-distance, long-duration space exploration and currently plan to explore inner solar planets (e.g., Mars) by the 2030s. With the emergence of space tourism, space travel has materialized as a potential new, exciting frontier of business, hospitality, medicine, and technology in the coming years. However, current evidence regarding human health in space is very limited, particularly pertaining to short-term and long-term space travel. This review synthesizes developments across the continuum of space health including prior studies and unpublished data from NASA related to each individual organ system, and medical screening prior to space travel. We categorized the extraterrestrial environment into exogenous (e.g., space radiation and microgravity) and endogenous processes (e.g., alteration of humans' natural circadian rhythm and mental health due to confinement, isolation, immobilization, and lack of social interaction) and their various effects on human health. The aim of this review is to explore the potential health challenges associated with space travel and how they may be overcome in order to enable new paradigms for space health, as well as the use of emerging Artificial Intelligence based (AI) technology to propel future space health research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".