ReviewFrontiers in physiology2025
Beyond the lab coat: methodological challenges in space life sciences.
Review 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As plans for deep space and long-duration missions advance, research in space and space-analog environments is becoming an urgent scientific priority. However, this type of fieldwork poses a unique set of challenges. The development of research methodologies and designs cannot rely on broad evidence base and thus requires scientific judgment and multidisciplinary psychophysiological expertise. Most studies comprise small samples, often lack control groups, sex differences have seldom been directly tested in this area and inter-individual variability is prevalent in this population. Moreover, this research domain is characterized by several exceptional factors that must be addressed. The target population is highly trained and not representative of the general population, demanding adapted study designs and highly sensitive and operationally relevant research tools. To avoid overburdening the already heavy operational schedules of this population, a careful and feasible balance must be established between scientific data quality and acceptable monitoring load. Furthermore, several issues of location, timing, and type of baseline measures must be explicitly considered, while long-term follow-up designs are necessary to assess both recovery and persistent post-mission effects. Major space agencies have indeed identified methodological issues as a knowledge gap in this area. In this review, we provide an overview of these methodological challenges unique to space life sciences and offer solutions where possible. We argue that space research remains feasible despite these constraints, but only when it is approached with the understanding that such fieldwork often requires fundamentally different methods than traditional laboratory science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.