Current methodological approaches assessing the healthrelated risks assessment in manned spaceflight missions

Further development of manned space exploration requires appropriate scientific and appropriate modern methodological approaches assessing the health risks of participants in missions to an orbital station with high inclination of the orbit and interplanetary missions. The "Environmental Scanning" as well as available Internet sources (PubMed and EMBASE; 198 relevant publications) and personal messages, followed by expert discussion within the framework of an interdisciplinary working group were used to assess the contemporary approaches of manned spaceflight risk definition, classification, assessment and management. The results indicated that the term "risk" itself needs to be clarified, and mathematical models based on modern approaches other than differential calculus and providing expert support for management decisions should be developed or adapted to available evidence-based real-world data obtained in experiments using laboratory animals, ground-based simulation studies with the participation of volunteers, as well as during pre- and post-flight examinations of astronauts. It is advisable for this purpose to use interdisciplinary and interdepartmental working groups, including experts in the field of aviation, space and marine medicine, public health and health organization and control sciences as well as contemporary mathematical methods of analysis and statistics.

1. Sidelnikov Yu.V., Tanasova A. S. Conceptual interpretation of the choice situation. Social sciences and modernity. 2004;(2):16–23. (In Russ.).

2. Uyba V. V., Ushakov I. B., Sapetsky A. O. The medical and biological risks associated with operations in deep space missions. Extreme medicine. 2017;59(1):43–64. (In Russ.).

3. Krewski D, Saunders-Hastings P, Baan RA, Barton-Maclaren TS, Browne P, Chiu WA, Gwinn M, Hartung T, Kraft AD, Lam J, Lewis RJ, Sanaa M, Morgan RL, Paoli G, Rhomberg L, Rooney A, Sand S, Schünemann HJ, Straif K, Thayer KA, Tsaioun K. Development of an Evidence-Based Risk Assessment Framework. ALTEX. 2022;39(4):667–693. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2004041

4. Ciani O, Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartssson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS. A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials. EClinicalMedicine. 2023; Oct.17;65:102283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102283

5. Mitra-Majumdar M, Gunter SJ, Kesselheim AS, Brown BL, Joyce KW, Ross M, Pham C, Avorn J, Darrow JJ. Analysis of Supportive Evidence for US Food and Drug Administration Approvals of Novel Drugs in 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5): e2212454. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12454

6. Ellermann C, McDowell M, Schirren CO, Lindemann AK, Koch S, Lohmann M, Jenny MA. Identifying content to improve risk assessment communications within the Risk Profile: Literature reviews and focus groups with expert and non-expert stakeholders. PLoS One. 2022; 17(4): e0266800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266800

7. Morrison, J. L. Environmental scanning. In M. A. Whitely, J. D. Porter, and R. H. Fenske (Eds.), A primer for new institutional researchers. Tallahassee, Florida: The Association for Institutional Research, 1992. pp. 86–99.

8. Nicolas Lesca. Environmental Scanning and Sustainable Development Print, 2011. ISBN:9781848212848 Online ISBN:9781118601891. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118601891

9. Xue Zhang, Shaheen Majid and Schubert Foo. Environmental scanning: An application of information literacy skills at the workplace. Journal of Information Science. 2010;36(6):719–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510385644

10. Forman, Ernest H.; Saul I. Gass. The analytical hierarchy process — an exposition. Operations Research. 2001;49 (4):469–487. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231

11. Saaty Thomas L. Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors — The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Review of the Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Series A: Mathematics. 2008;102(2):251–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03191825.S2CID42215574

12. Bjоrn Hofmann. Bioethics: No Method — No Discipline? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics., First View. pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000136

13. Stemberg A.S., A. A. Perevezentsev, A. G. Belyaeva. The effect of interplanetary flight factors on the functions of the central nervous system: model experiments on primates. Integrative Physiology. 2023;4(4):401–414. 1. https://doi.org/10.33910/2687–1270–2023–4–4–401–414. (In Russ.).

14. Stemberg A.S., Perevezentsev A. A., Lebedeva-Georgievskaya K.B., Kudrin V. S., Belyaeva A. G., Kuznetsova O. S. Neurobiological effects of combined action of radiation and gravitational factors of interplanetary flight in model experiments: results and prospects. Aerospace and environmental medicine. 2023;57(5):19–128. https://doi.org/10.21687/0233–528X-2023–57–5–119–128. (In Russ.).

15. Grigoriev, A. I., Krasavin, E. A., Ostrovsky, M. A. To assess the risk of biological action of galactic heavy ions in the conditions of interplanetary flight. I. M. Sechenov Russian Journal of Physiology. 2013;99(3):273–280. (In Russ.).

16. Pohlen M, Carroll D, Prisk GK, Sawyer AJ. Overview of lunar dust toxicity risk. NPJ Microgravity. 2022 Dec 2;8(1):55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526–022–00244–1

17. Matthias Augustin. Cumulative life course impairment: identifying patients at risk. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2013;44:74–81.

18. Orlov O.I., Shved D. M., Gushchin V. I., Bubeev Yu.A., Popova Yu.A., Markin A. A., Rykova M. P., Ilyin V. K., Ponomarev S. A. Psychological and physiological aspects of experiments with isolation (based on Russian research materials). Aerospace and environmental medicine. 2023;57(5):5–19. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21687/0233–528X–2023–57–5–5–19

19. Meshkov D. O. Rational use of medical technologies. Moscow, 2022. 206 P. (In Russ.).

20. Il'in EA. Programme "BION": from the past to the future. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;42(6):45–57. Russian. PMID: 19238916

21. Zakharov S. Yu., Baranov M. V., Kaspransky R. R. The influence of the total duration of space flights on the structure of morbidity and severity of the course of diseases in veteran cosmonauts according to the results of an in-depth medical examination. Aerospace and environmental medicine. 2023;57(6):5–10. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21687/0233–528X-2023–57–6–5–10

22. Savinkina A.O., Shved D. M., Lebedeva S. A., Vinokhodova A. G., Kuznetsova P. G., Gushchin V. I. Individual characteristics and factors of successful adaptation to the conditions of two-week isolation simulating a flight to the moon. Aerospace and environmental medicine. 2024;58(2):17–27. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21687/0233–528X-2024–58–2–17–27