MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385264903 · doi:10.2196/48812

G Tolerance Prediction Model Using Mobile Device–Measured Cardiac Force Index for Military Aircrew: Observational Study

2023· article· en· W4385264903 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming-Hao Kuo, You-Jin Lin, Wun-Wei Huang, Kwo-Tsao Chiang, Min‐Yu Tu, Chi‐Ming Chu, Chung‐Yu Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Affairs BureauKaohsiung Armed Forces General Hospital
KeywordsAircrewObservational studyIndex (typography)AeronauticsComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During flight, G force compels blood to stay in leg muscles and reduces blood flow to the heart. Cardiovascular responses activated by the autonomic nerve system and strengthened by anti-G straining maneuvers can alleviate the challenges faced during G loading. To our knowledge, no definite cardiac information measured using a mobile health device exists for analyzing G tolerance. However, our previous study developed the cardiac force index (CFI) for analyzing the G tolerance of military aircrew. OBJECTIVE: This study used the CFI to verify participants' cardiac performance when walking and obtained a formula for predicting an individual's G tolerance during centrifuge training. METHODS: Participants from an air force aircrew undertook high-G training from January 2020 to December 2022. Their heart rate (HR) in beats per minute and activity level per second were recorded using the wearable BioHarness 3.0 device. The CFI was computed using the following formula: weight × activity / HR during resting or walking. Relaxed G tolerance (RGT) and straining G tolerance (SGT) were assessed at a slowly increasing rate of G loading (0.1 G/s) during training. Other demographic factors were included in the multivariate regression to generate a model for predicting G tolerance from the CFI. RESULTS: A total of 213 eligible trainees from a military aircrew were recruited. The average age was 25.61 (SD 3.66) years, and 13.1% (28/213) of the participants were women. The mean resting CFI and walking CFI (WCFI) were 0.016 (SD 0.001) and 0.141 (SD 0.037) kg × G/beats per minute, respectively. The models for predicting RGT and SGT were as follows: RGT = 0.066 × age + 0.043 × (WCFI × 100) - 0.037 × height + 0.015 × systolic blood pressure - 0.010 × HR + 7.724 and SGT = 0.103 × (WCFI × 100) - 0.069 × height + 0.018 × systolic blood pressure + 15.899. Thus, the WCFI is a positive factor for predicting the RGT and SGT before centrifuge training. CONCLUSIONS: The WCFI is a vital component of the formula for estimating G tolerance prior to training. The WCFI can be used to monitor physiological conditions against G stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207