MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392752674 · doi:10.1113/ep091795

Experimental bed rest as a model to investigate mechanisms of, and countermeasures against, microgravity and disease‐free inactivity

2024· article· en· W4392752674 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Rodrigo Fernandez‐Gonzalo, Colleen S. Deane, Damian M. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Space AgencySwedish National Space Agency
KeywordsRest (music)Bed restDiseaseMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More humans are now entering space than ever before, owing to significant investment from governmental and commercial agencies looking ambitiously to expand the reach of humanity beyond low Earth orbit, involving habitation of a permanent base on the surface of the Moon ahead of the horizon goal, a crewed mission to the red planet, Mars.With the advent of long-duration interstellar travel, there is mounting pressure to gain a better understanding of the functionally integrated physiological responses to, and countermeasures that mitigate against, the maladaptive changes incurred by microgravity and physical inactivity.Owing to the technical, logistical and financial costs associated with conducting spaceflight research, 6 • head-downtilt bed rest (HDBR), first introduced by a Soviet team led by Genin and Kakurin (1972), has become the mainstay ground-based analogue of microgravity (Hargens & Vico, 2016).In this issue of Experimental Physiology, Hajj-Boutros et al. (2024) comprehensively detail the first Canadian study (supported by the Canadian Space Agency, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207