ReviewCureus2026
Cleared for Launch: Pre-flight Medical Assessment in the Commercial Spaceflight Era.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commercial human spaceflight has expanded markedly since 2021, with a growing cohort of civilian participants having undertaken suborbital, orbital free-flyer, and International Space Station visiting-crew missions. Pre-flight medical assessment of this population, however, continues to rely on regulatory guidance that predates the first civilian orbital flight by approximately fifteen years and stratifies eligibility on a single dimension of G-load exposure. The evidence accumulated since on spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome, on centrifuge-analog tolerance in participants with chronic comorbidities, on the integrated multi-omic findings of recent civilian orbital missions, and on the new mission profiles introduced by the Axiom and Polaris Dawn programs has not been incorporated into a unified evaluation framework. In this narrative review, the aerospace-medicine and clinical literature of the past two decades is synthesized within a framework that distinguishes mission-related background factors (including acceleration, microgravity, spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome, ionizing radiation, and cabin environment) from participant-related factors (comprising age, sex, reproductive status, and cardiopulmonary, metabolic, and oncological comorbidity). The documented cohort spans 18 to 90 years of age, with the extremes confined to suborbital flights. The orbital free-flyer subset (n=12 across Inspiration4, Polaris Dawn, and Fram2) ranges from approximately 29 to 63 years, and the International Space Station (ISS) visiting-crew subset (n=12 civilian participants across Axiom AX-1 through AX-4, excluding career-astronaut commanders) from 33 to 71 years. Documented comorbidities include treated coronary artery disease, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, and prior oncological conditions. Based on the available evidence, a clinical routine is proposed, organized across three assessment tiers - a universal baseline (Tier 1), an indication-driven system-specific evaluation (Tier 2), and a mission-class-specific evaluation (Tier 3) - and distributed along a four-step pathway from 90 days before flight to the day of launch. The proposed workflow may serve as an operational starting point, although prospective validation will be required as the commercial era generates additional data on participants, mission profiles, and clinical outcomes.
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.