Readaptation from Simulated Microgravity as a Stimulus for Improved Orthostatic Tolerance: Role of the Renal, Cardioendocrine, and Cardiovascular Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microgravity and simulated microgravity (SM) lead to important changes in orthostatic tolerance (OT), the autonomic nervous system (ANS), and the volume-regulating systems. After one is exposed to microgravity or SM, a period of readaptation to gravity is known to take place, but it is not certain if orthostatic function returns to baseline within the initial recovery and what mechanisms are involved. We hypothesized that after a period of recovery, OT, ANS, and volume-regulating systems would return to pre-SM levels. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, 24 healthy men were placed on a constant diet for 3 to 5 days, after which a tilt-stand test (pre-TST) was performed. The TST was repeated after 14 to 16 days of head-down tilt bed rest (HDTB) (post-TST) and a 3-day period of recovery (rec-TST), at which times measurements of renal, cardioendocrine, and cardiovascular systems were conducted. RESULTS: Presyncope occurred in 46% of subjects pre-TST, in 72% post-TST, and in 23% during rec-TST. OT was significantly better during the recovery period than at baseline (p = .03). There was a significant decrease in urinary sodium and potassium excretion, along with a decrease in plasma renin activity and serum and urine aldosterone compared with baseline. Serum norepinephrine and sympathetic responsiveness remained below baseline values. CONCLUSION: In summary, OT improved compared with baseline after a period of readaptation. Retention of electrolytes (sodium, potassium) could be involved. These findings indicate that recovery after SM is not simply a gradual return to baseline values but is instead a dynamic process reflecting interaction of multiple regulatory systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".