ArticleScientific reports2026
Guidelines for use of the random positioning machine as a reduced-gravity analog.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With expanding spaceflight mission plans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, investigating biological phenomena in reduced-gravity environments is a critical need. Ground-based spaceflight-analog platforms, such as the two-frame Random Positioning Machine (RPM), represent an alternative to operationally challenging spaceflight-based experiments. We developed a kinematic model to define the acceleration and gravitational level experienced by a sample at the center of an RPM. In comparing this to the RPM's performance with accelerometers and motion capture sensors, we validated the RPM and defined optimized performance parameters for time-averaged microgravity and reduced-gravity simulation (rotation rate: outer frame > 30 deg/s, inner frame > 20 deg/s slower; sample size: <10-15 cm from the center depending on rotation rate; experimental duration: >25 min). We also present the validated designs for an RPM capable of simulating microgravity, lunar gravity, Martian gravity, and hypergravity simultaneously. Finally, we identify "pole bias" as a critical limitation for two-frame RPMs: when the outer frame is aligned vertically, which occurs twice during each rotation, the gravity vector is aligned with a sample and generates two poles. At higher rotation rates, this significantly reduces the fidelity of an RPM's reduced-gravity simulation, and we thus introduce the design and validation for a novel three-frame RPM that can mitigate pole bias. We validated the RPM platform, optimized experimental design guidelines, and identified novel RPM designs for microgravity and reduced-gravity investigations.
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.