Detrimental Effects of Space Flight on the Lumbar Spine May Be Correlated to Baseline Degeneration: Insights From an Advanced MR Imaging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pain in lower back is a common condition reported by astronauts, both during and after space missions. Investigating the alterations in the spine and the mechanisms driving these changes is essential for a deeper understanding of how microgravity impacts the human spine. This knowledge could also open pathways for therapeutic or preventive interventions. Nevertheless, there is a limited evidence regarding changes in intervertebral discs (IVDs) due to space travel. Materials and Methods: In this study, 2 astronauts were enrolled in a space travel. Before the space flight, a lower back magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was performed. We repeated an MRI instantly after 17-days space travel, and again 3 months after landing. The water content and glycosaminoglycan (GAGs) levels in the lumbar IVDs were evaluated using DIXON water-only phase imaging and T1rho MRI sequences. Additionally, alterations in the size and quality of the paraspinal muscles (PSMs), including fatty infiltration, were examined. Results: Varied alterations were observed in the IVDs and PSMs of both astronauts. One astronaut experienced a reduction in water and GAGs content, while the other showed an increase. These changes in the IVDs following spaceflight appeared to be linked to the degree of baseline degeneration. Regarding the PSMs, differences in size and fatty infiltration also varied between the two astronauts. Notably, these changes had not stabilized by the final follow-up at 3 months. Conclusion: Our findings offer initial evidence indicating that even brief exposures to microgravity might be linked to biochemical alterations in IVDs and changes in the quality of PSMs, which could continue evolving for more than 3 months after returning from space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".