ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Repeatability of artificial gravity tolerance times.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exposure to microgravity results in physiological deconditioning, including orthostatic intolerance. Artificial gravity (AG) from short-arm centrifuges is being tested in ground-based studies to counter these effects. Orthostatic tolerance testing with centrifuges before and after these spaceflight analogs could determine the efficacy of an AG countermeasure to orthostatic tolerance. However, there has not been an investigation on how long before analog testing AG orthostatic tolerance data would remain valid for such a study. Methods: A secondary analysis of two experiments involving AG orthostatic tolerance testing (starting at 0.6 for females and 0.8 Gz for males and increased by 0.1 Gz every 3 minutes until presyncope) conducted 7 months apart at MEDES revealed 4 male and 3 female participants who had taken part in both. Results: Comparisons of participants' time to presyncope between the two tests using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) showed a significant relationship in time to presyncope between the two test dates (LCCC = 0.98) for males but not for females (LCCC = -0.64). While the cardiovascular data from one female was unusable, the mean heart rate responses to increasing artificial gravity during the orthostatic tolerance procedure showed a strong linear correlation between the two tests for all other participants (all p < 0.008). The LCCC heart rate changes with centrifuge level varied across male participants from 0.61 to 0.97, suggesting that the high LCCC for time to presyncope was achieved with varied HR baselines between the two test dates. Discussion: These findings indicate that time-to-presyncope tests may remain valid up to 7 months after the testing date for males. We highly recommend further study with larger numbers of male and female participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.