MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412382741 · doi:10.1177/10806032251349442

Space Oncology: A Comprehensive Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4412382741 on OpenAlexaff
Nafise Niknam, Hossein Akbarialiabad, Mohsen Farjoud Kouhanjani, Lydia Johnson Kolaparambil Varghese, Amy Berrington de González, M. Mark Melin, Mohammad Shafie’ei, Seyedeh Maryam Mousavi, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Seyed Reza Taha, Thaís Russomano, Dédée F. Murrell, Ayman Grada, Sancy A. Leachman, Zahra Akbari, Armita Jokar-Derisi, Marta Jurga, Ajay Kumar, Saswati Das, Jessica D’Urbano, Gabriella Hakim, Najmeh Sadeghian, Shahram Paydar, Michelle Tarbox, Cameron West, Seyyed Mojtaba Ghorashi, Seyed Hossein Hosseini, Timothy Squire, Christopher G. Bunick, Rowena Christiansen

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpaceflightStressorWeightlessnessChecklistMedicinePsychologyBioinformaticsBiologyNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space exploration exposes astronauts to unique conditions such as microgravity and space radiation, potentially influencing gene expression and triggering carcinogenesis. Paradoxically, these extreme environments could uncover other pro-treatment aspects of cancer biology. Despite numerous reviews addressing these aspects in isolation, a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of space stressors on cancer development is incomplete. This scoping review aims to provide a holistic perspective on the influence of spaceflight and associated stressors-including gravitation (hyper- and microgravity), radiation, and vibration-on the potential for cancer development and altered cellular mechanisms. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for our review. A multitiered search strategy was employed in English, starting with a preliminary keyword identification in Google Scholar and PubMed. Subsequently, the main search was conducted across five databases-Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science-until 22 February 2024. All included studies were thoroughly assessed by two independent reviewers. Of the 15,553 identified articles, 158 were deemed eligible. The majority (92%) were experimental studies, predominantly cell-based (74.17%). Breast (15.19%), thyroid (13.92%), and hematopoietic (11.40%) cancers were the most frequently examined. Spaceflight stressors could affect different biological systems variably, with microgravity impacting spatial growth and metastasis, and cosmic radiation exerting both tumor-suppressive and mutagenic effects. Our findings highlight the need for large-scale, prolonged analog studies mimicking space conditions to enhance mission safety and shed light on the nuanced effects of space stressors on cancer. Additionally, further extensive studies need to be performed in the true weightlessness of spaceflight, both animal-based and on human tissue (cell cultures and potentially whole perfusion organ models), in addition to crew pre/intra/post-flight long-duration evaluations. Furthermore, this unique research avenue may reveal cancer cell sensitivities to these stressors, opening new pathways for innovative therapeutic strategies in cancer treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWilderness and Environmental MedicineSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207