Pain Experience and Sensory Changes in Astronauts During and After Short-Lasting Commercial Spaceflight: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space travel has been associated with musculoskeletal pain, yet little is known about the nociceptive changes and pain experience during spaceflight. This preliminary study aims to investigate the pain experience and sensory alterations in astronauts following a 17-day mission to the International Space Station (ISS) on Axiom Space's AX-1 commercial space flight. Two participants were enrolled, and data were collected pre-flight, in-flight, post-flight, and three-month post-flight. Validated pain questionnaires assessed anxiety, catastrophizing, impact on physical and mental health, disability, and overall pain experience. Qualitative interviews were conducted post-landing and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) were performed. Both astronauts reported musculoskeletal pain during and after the flight, which was managed with anti-inflammatories and stretching techniques. Pain levels returned to baseline after three months. Pain questionnaires revealed heightened pain experiences in-flight and immediately post-flight, although their adequacy in assessing pain in space is uncertain. Qualitative interviews allowed astronauts to describe their pain experiences during the flight. Sensory changes included increased mechanical touch detection thresholds, temporal pain summation, heat pain thresholds, and differences in conditioned pain modulation post-flight. This preliminary study suggested that spaceflight may affect various aspects of sensory perception and regulation in astronauts, albeit in a variable manner. More data are needed to gain insight of on gain and loss of sensory functions during space missions. Further investigation into the multifactorial stressors affecting the somatosensory system during space travel could contribute to advancements in space and pain medicine.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".