ArticleRadiology2026
SpaceXray: Feasibility and Diagnostic Capabilities of On-Orbit Medical Radiography.
Article in Radiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background To support crew health during spaceflight, in-flight imaging must extend beyond the capabilities of portable ultrasound (US). Digital radiography may provide improved diagnostic quality and enable equipment monitoring through nondestructive testing. Purpose To demonstrate the feasibility of a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) radiography system for on-orbit imaging applications. Materials and Methods In a prospective study, a portable, digital, COTS radiography system was evaluated during the 3.5-day Fram2 polar orbital flight. Anatomic and equipment radiographs were obtained preflight and in-flight by crew participants with 4 hours of training. Radiographs were evaluated by independent radiologists on overall image quality, spatial resolution, contrast resolution, and positioning (Likert scores of 1-5). Preflight radiographs were compared with in-flight radiographs using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Hardware testing and crew surveys were conducted postflight; survey responses were thematically analyzed due to small sample size. Results Three crewmembers participated (mean age, 42.8 years ± 13.9 [SD]; two women). In-flight and preflight anatomic radiographs (seven each) demonstrated no evidence of differences in overall image quality (mean score, 4.86 ± 0.26 vs 5.0 ± 0, respectively;
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.