人类系统风险评估的证据等级。

IF 4.4 1区 物理与天体物理 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES npj Microgravity Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1038/s41526-024-00372-w
Jessica Ward, Robert J Reynolds, Erin Connell, Wilma Anton, Avalon Kabeel, Jacqueline M Charvat, Nicholas Nartey, Kristina Marotta, Ahmed Abukmail, Dan M Buckland, Mary Van Baalen, Erik Antonsen
{"title":"人类系统风险评估的证据等级。","authors":"Jessica Ward, Robert J Reynolds, Erin Connell, Wilma Anton, Avalon Kabeel, Jacqueline M Charvat, Nicholas Nartey, Kristina Marotta, Ahmed Abukmail, Dan M Buckland, Mary Van Baalen, Erik Antonsen","doi":"10.1038/s41526-024-00372-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>NASA uses a continuous risk management process to seek out new knowledge of spaceflight-induced risk to human health and performance. The evidence base that informs the risk assessments in this domain is constantly changing as more information is gleaned from a continuous human presence in space and from ongoing research. However, the limitations of this evidence are difficult to characterize because fewer than 700 humans have ever flown in space, and information comes from a variety of sources that span disciplines, including engineering, medicine, food and nutrition, and many other life sciences. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) at NASA is responsible for assessing risk to astronauts and communicating this risk to agency decision-makers. A critical part of that communication is conveying the uncertainty regarding the understanding of the changes that spaceflight induces in human processes and the complex interactions between humans and the spacecraft. Although the strength of evidence grades is common in the academic literature, these scores are often not useful for the problems of human spaceflight. The HSRB continues to update the processes used to report the levels of evidence. This paper describes recent updates to the methods used to assign the level of evidence scores to the official risk postures and to the causal diagrams used by the HSRB.</p>","PeriodicalId":54263,"journal":{"name":"npj Microgravity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10954631/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Levels of evidence for human system risk evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Ward, Robert J Reynolds, Erin Connell, Wilma Anton, Avalon Kabeel, Jacqueline M Charvat, Nicholas Nartey, Kristina Marotta, Ahmed Abukmail, Dan M Buckland, Mary Van Baalen, Erik Antonsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41526-024-00372-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>NASA uses a continuous risk management process to seek out new knowledge of spaceflight-induced risk to human health and performance. The evidence base that informs the risk assessments in this domain is constantly changing as more information is gleaned from a continuous human presence in space and from ongoing research. However, the limitations of this evidence are difficult to characterize because fewer than 700 humans have ever flown in space, and information comes from a variety of sources that span disciplines, including engineering, medicine, food and nutrition, and many other life sciences. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) at NASA is responsible for assessing risk to astronauts and communicating this risk to agency decision-makers. A critical part of that communication is conveying the uncertainty regarding the understanding of the changes that spaceflight induces in human processes and the complex interactions between humans and the spacecraft. Although the strength of evidence grades is common in the academic literature, these scores are often not useful for the problems of human spaceflight. The HSRB continues to update the processes used to report the levels of evidence. This paper describes recent updates to the methods used to assign the level of evidence scores to the official risk postures and to the causal diagrams used by the HSRB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"npj Microgravity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10954631/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"npj Microgravity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-024-00372-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"npj Microgravity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-024-00372-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国航天局利用持续的风险管理过程,寻求有关航天飞行对人类健康和性能所造成风险的新知识。随着从人类在空间的持续存在和正在进行的研究中收集到更多的信息,为这一领域的风险评估提供依据的证据基础也在不断变化。然而,这些证据的局限性难以确定,因为只有不到 700 人曾在太空飞行过,而且信息来源多种多样,跨越了工程学、医学、食品和营养学以及许多其他生命科学等学科。美国国家航空航天局(NASA)的人类系统风险委员会(HSRB)负责评估宇航员面临的风险,并将风险传达给机构决策者。沟通的一个关键部分是传达对航天飞行在人类过程中引起的变化以及人类与航天器之间复杂的相互作用的不确定性的理解。虽然证据强度等级在学术文献中很常见,但这些分数往往对载人航天问题并无用处。人类安全研究委员会不断更新用于报告证据等级的程序。本文介绍了用于为官方风险态势和人类航天研究委员会使用的因果关系图分配证据等级分数的方法的最新更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Levels of evidence for human system risk evaluation.

NASA uses a continuous risk management process to seek out new knowledge of spaceflight-induced risk to human health and performance. The evidence base that informs the risk assessments in this domain is constantly changing as more information is gleaned from a continuous human presence in space and from ongoing research. However, the limitations of this evidence are difficult to characterize because fewer than 700 humans have ever flown in space, and information comes from a variety of sources that span disciplines, including engineering, medicine, food and nutrition, and many other life sciences. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) at NASA is responsible for assessing risk to astronauts and communicating this risk to agency decision-makers. A critical part of that communication is conveying the uncertainty regarding the understanding of the changes that spaceflight induces in human processes and the complex interactions between humans and the spacecraft. Although the strength of evidence grades is common in the academic literature, these scores are often not useful for the problems of human spaceflight. The HSRB continues to update the processes used to report the levels of evidence. This paper describes recent updates to the methods used to assign the level of evidence scores to the official risk postures and to the causal diagrams used by the HSRB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
npj Microgravity
npj Microgravity Physics and Astronomy-Physics and Astronomy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: A new open access, online-only, multidisciplinary research journal, npj Microgravity is dedicated to publishing the most important scientific advances in the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering fields that are facilitated by spaceflight and analogue platforms.
期刊最新文献
Dependence of cyanobacterium growth and Mars-specific photobioreactor mass on total pressure, pN2 and pCO2. Formaldehyde initiates memory and motor impairments under weightlessness condition. Development and implementation of a simulated microgravity setup for edible cyanobacteria. Space Analogs and Behavioral Health Performance Research review and recommendations checklist from ESA Topical Team. Surface tension enables induced pluripotent stem cell culture in commercially available hardware during spaceflight.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1