Systematic review of the use of ultrasound for venous assessment and venous thrombosis screening in spaceflight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validity of venous ultrasound (V-US) for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during spaceflight is unknown and difficult to establish in diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic management studies in this context. We performed a systematic review of the use of V-US in the upper-body venous system in spaceflight to identify microgravity-related changes and the effect of venous interventions to reverse them, and to assess appropriateness of spaceflight V-US with terrestrial standards. An appropriateness tool was developed following expert panel discussions and review of terrestrial diagnostic studies, including criteria relevant to crew experience, in-flight equipment, assessment sites, ultrasound modalities, and DVT diagnosis. Microgravity-related findings reported as an increase in internal jugular vein (IJV) cross-sectional area and pressure were associated with reduced, stagnant, and retrograde flow. Changes were on average responsive to venous interventions using lower body negative pressure, Bracelets, Valsalva and Mueller manoeuvres, and contralateral IJV compression. In comparison with terrestrial standards, spaceflight V-US did not meet all appropriateness criteria. In DVT studies (n = 3), a single thrombosis was reported and only ultrasound modality criterion met the standards. In the other studies (n = 15), all the criteria were appropriate except crew experience criterion, which was appropriate in only four studies. Future practice and research should account for microgravity-related changes, evaluate individual effect of venous interventions, and adopt Earth-based V-US standards.
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 | 0.013 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".