ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Research on the evaluation model of pilots' in-flight stress state based on flight critical events.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From G tolerance to physiological state monitoring: mechanisms and adaptive protection.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Human limits in next-generation fighter aviation: psychophysiological stressors, readiness, health, performance, and countermeasures.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stress refers to the non - specific response that occurs in an organism when it is subjected to stressful stimuli. When fighter pilots execute high-stress missions, they are likely to experience stress responses. These responses may have a negative impact on the cognitive decision-making processes of the pilots, subsequently undermining the mission effectiveness. However, to date, there is a dearth of methodologies for evaluating the in-flight stress states of pilots. The aim of this research is to establish an assessment model by using the real physiological data of pilots in flight to predict their stress state during flight. Method: This study utilized the in - flight physiological data of 32 pilots aged between 22 and 30 years old. The data included electrocardiogram (ECG) data, respiratory data, and human body acceleration data. By analyzing the differences in the physiological characteristics of pilots under various stress conditions, sensitive physiological indicators corresponding to different stress states were screened out. Using electrocardiogram (ECG) and respiratory indices that are sensitive to stress changes as model inputs, a stress state assessment model was constructed via machine learning techniques. The performance of the model was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the F1 - score. Result: Screen out ten electrocardiogram (ECG) indicators that are sensitive to the stress level of pilots, which are Mean HR, MeanRR, SDNN, RMSSD, pNN50, pNN20, LF/HF, LFn, HFn and SD1/SD2. Screen out five respiratory indicators that are sensitive to the stress level of pilots, which are Mean Rsp, EB1, EB2, EB3 and EB4. The binary classification assessment model of stress state, which was constructed using the ensemble learning approach, achieved an accuracy of 95.56% in the five - fold cross - validation. Conclusion: This study effectively accomplished the assessment of pilots' stress states based on physiological characteristics. It is conducive to optimizing the stress training strategies for pilots and enhancing their capabilities to cope with and manage stress. This research has certain theoretical significance and engineering application value for improving the performance of flight missions and ensuring flight safety.
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.