MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324056966 · doi:10.3390/life13030757

Homo sapiens—A Species Not Designed for Space Flight: Health Risks in Low Earth Orbit and Beyond, Including Potential Risks When Traveling beyond the Geomagnetic Field of Earth

2023· review· en· W4324056966 on OpenAlexafffund
David A. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsHomo sapiensContext (archaeology)Earth's magnetic fieldAstrobiologyBiosphereEarth system scienceEarth's orbitEarth scienceBiologyGeologyAerospace engineeringEcologyGeographyEngineeringPhysicsSpacecraftPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

and their predecessors evolved in the context of the boundary conditions of Earth, including a 1 g gravity and a geomagnetic field (GMF). These variables, plus others, led to complex organisms that evolved under a defined set of conditions and define how humans will respond to space flight, a circumstance that could not have been anticipated by evolution. Over the past ~60 years, space flight and living in low Earth orbit (LEO) have revealed that astronauts are impacted to varying degrees by such new environments. In addition, it has been noted that astronauts are quite heterogeneous in their response patterns, indicating that such variation is either silent if one remained on Earth, or the heterogeneity unknowingly contributes to disease development during aging or in response to insults. With the planned mission to deep space, humans will now be exposed to further risks from radiation when traveling beyond the influence of the GMF, as well as other potential risks that are associated with the actual loss of the GMF on the astronauts, their microbiomes, and growing food sources. Experimental studies with model systems have revealed that hypogravity conditions can influence a variety biological and physiological systems, and thus the loss of the GMF may have unanticipated consequences to astronauts' systems, such as those that are electrical in nature (i.e., the cardiovascular system and central neural systems). As astronauts have been shown to be heterogeneous in their responses to LEO, they may require personalized countermeasures, while others may not be good candidates for deep-space missions if effective countermeasures cannot be developed for long-duration missions. This review will discuss several of the physiological and neural systems that are affected and how the emerging variables may influence astronaut health and functioning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207