ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2013
Space physiology IV: mathematical modeling of the cardiovascular system in space exploration.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network physiology in space: vision and perspectives on exploring physiological networks during spaceflight for the benefit of life on earth.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- Computational modelling of cardiovascular pathophysiology to risk stratify commercial spaceflight.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Modelling physiology of haemodynamic adaptation in short-term microgravity exposure and orthostatic stress on Earth.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cardiovascular deconditioning during long-term spaceflight through multiscale modeling.NPJ microgravity · 2020Article
- Maximizing information from space data resources: a case for expanding integration across research disciplines.European journal of applied physiology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mathematical modeling represents an important tool for analyzing cardiovascular function during spaceflight. This review describes how modeling of the cardiovascular system can contribute to space life science research and illustrates this process via modeling efforts to study postflight orthostatic intolerance (POI), a key issue for spaceflight. Examining this application also provides a context for considering broader applications of modeling techniques to the challenges of bioastronautics. POI, which affects a large fraction of astronauts in stand tests upon return to Earth, presents as dizziness, fainting and other symptoms, which can diminish crew performance and cause safety hazards. POI on the Moon or Mars could be more critical. In the field of bioastronautics, POI has been the dominant application of cardiovascular modeling for more than a decade, and a number of mechanisms for POI have been investigated. Modeling approaches include computational models with a range of incorporated factors and hemodynamic sophistication, and also physical models tested in parabolic and orbital flight. Mathematical methods such as parameter sensitivity analysis can help identify key system mechanisms. In the case of POI, this could lead to more effective countermeasures. Validation is a persistent issue in modeling efforts, and key considerations and needs for experimental data to synergistically improve understanding of cardiovascular responses are outlined. Future directions in cardiovascular modeling include subject-specific assessment of system status, as well as research on integrated physiological responses, leading, for instance, to assessment of subject-specific susceptibility to POI or effects of cardiovascular alterations on muscular, vision and cognitive function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23539439What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.