Percutaneous aspiration of fluid for management of peritonitis in space.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a medical emergency that can affect even well-screened, healthy individuals, peritonitis developing during a long-duration space exploration mission may dictate deviation from traditional clinical practice due to the absence of otherwise indicated surgical capabilities. Medical management can treat many intra-abdominal processes, but treatment failures are inevitable. In these circumstances, percutaneous aspiration under sonographic guidance could provide a "rescue" strategy. HYPOTHESIS: Sonographically guided percutaneous aspiration of intra-peritoneal fluid can be performed in microgravity. METHODS: Investigations were conducted in the microgravity environment of NASA's KC-135 research aircraft (0 G). The subjects were anesthetized female Yorkshire pigs weighing 50 kg. The procedures were rehearsed in a terrestrial animal lab (1 G). Colored saline (500 mL) was introduced through an intra-peritoneal catheter during flight. A high-definition ultrasound system (HDI-5000, ATL, Bothell, WA) was used to guide a 16-gauge needle into the peritoneal cavity to aspirate fluid. RESULTS: Intra-peritoneal fluid collections were easily identified, distinct from surrounding viscera, and on occasion became more obvious during weightless conditions. Subjectively, with adequate restraint of the subject and operators, the procedure was no more demanding than during the 1-G rehearsals. CONCLUSIONS: Sonographically guided percutaneous aspiration of intra-peritoneal fluid collections is feasible in weightlessness. Treatment of intra-abdominal inflammatory conditions in spaceflight might rely on pharmacological options, backed by sonographically guided percutaneous aspiration for the "rescue" of treatment failures. While this risk mitigation strategy cannot guarantee success, it may be the most practical option given severe resource limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".