The malleability of air travelers hypobaric hypoxia symptoms observed among repeated exposures: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comprehension of the symptoms caused by hypobaric hypoxia in air travelers allows aviation safety actions to be efficiently carried out. In this context, it is also important to clarify the behavior of these symptoms between exposure sessions. This registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021283758) aims to identify possible changes in the symptoms of hypobaric hypoxia reported by air travelers submitted to repeated exposure in a hypobaric chamber throughout their careers. The following inclusion criteria were adopted: re-exposure to hypobaric hypoxia; and the following exclusion criteria: mountain sickness, decompression sickness, experimental animal models, and medical or dental outcomes. The search was conducted in Scopus, BVS/VHL, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, and Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. The selected studies were analyzed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of the 430 titles found, five articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were selected for the systematic review, totaling a sample of 1,569 participants. It was found that the participants' hypoxia symptoms tend to repeat themselves in the same way in the other sessions of exposure to hypobaric hypoxia. However, it was identified that such symptoms are influenced by personal factors that can lead to variations in symptoms for the same individual between sessions of exposure to hypobaric hypoxia. Therefore, with aviation safety as a priority, it is prudent to interpret that the symptoms of hypobaric hypoxia are malleable and that they may vary upon re-exposure of the subject to it.
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 | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".