Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

L. Boley

Publications and source records attributed to L. Boley.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Preliminary Medical Risk Estimates and Clinical Capability Needs for Late Artemis Missions

BACKGROUND Human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in- mission medical care. Compared with the ISS, the greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and significant limitations on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Spacecraft mass, volume, and power will be curtailed while higher demands will be placed on the crew’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In this higher risk environment, it is important to: a) quantitatively estimate human system risk attributable to medical conditions, a process known as Probabilistic Risk Analysis, and b) use these estimates to inform medical system design. IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a PRA and medical trade space analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 improves upon and will soon replace NASA’s existing tool, the Integrated Medical Model, with: a novel evidence base baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a significant increase in the number of medical resources that can be utilized and in the flexibility of their use; and the modelling of time lost performing mission-specific tasks due to medical conditions. METHODOLOGY: This abstract will present IMPACT estimates of medical system risk and clinical capability needs for the Artemis IV mission. Artemis IV is currently scheduled for 2026 and will visit the Gateway space station in lunar orbit prior to the second lunar landing of the Artemis program. The baseline Artemis IV mission that was modeled was 28 days in duration with phases including Orion outbound, 4 days on the Gateway space station in lunar orbit, 2 crew on the surface of the Moon for approximately one week, an additional 5 days on Gateway, and then return to Earth. This baseline was compared to two alternative 34-day design reference missions (DRMs) that shifted the lunar sortie earlier or later in the mission profile. Assumptions included 2 female and 2 male crew and a notional medical system mass of 25 kg. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life (LOCL), consideration of medical evacuation (known as return to definitive care – RTDC), and an estimate of crew time lost due to medical conditions (Task Time Lost – TTL). The presentation will also describe the medical conditions that are the greatest drivers of risk as well as the clinical capabilities and resources that have the largest effect on risk. RESULTS: All three DRMs had very low probability of LOCL from medical conditions, primarily due to short duration. RTDC was also similar across the DRMs. In contrast, TTL was higher in the early lunar sortie DRM due to earlier occurrence of EVA-related medical conditions. Taken as a whole, there was no clinically significant difference in medical risk across the three missions. Results for clinical capabilities and an example medical equipment list will be discussed but were similar across DRMs.

D. Hilmers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Root Cause Analysis of the Data Refinement Process – Medical Conditions Capability Resource Tables

The medical system for spaceflight thus far has been designed to support missions in low earth orbit (LEO). Crew capabilities are limited and heavily dependent on the team of medical support staff at Mission Control Center (MCC) to guide diagnosis and management. However, missions to the Moon and Mars will suffer from several constraints that will make this ground support focused approach to care ineffective. In order to update and modify medical system design, NASA has relied on Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling to mitigate medical risk through trade space analysis. Specifically, capability resource tables (CRT’s) were developed to create a dataset of resources required to manage a list of accepted medical conditions significant in exploration spaceflight. With 120 conditions, this dataset contained hundreds of capabilities and thousands of resources with tens of thousands of cells of data. Initially these tables were built in excel for high throughput during development, but ultimately had to be transferred, managed, and modified into the Evidence Library database for modeling purposes. The process of collating and reviewing the Evidence Library revealed numerous errors in the dataset that had to be corrected through iterative changes. Several error types emerged during this process and can be broken into specific classifications defined as “input”, “transcription”, “structural”, “branching”, and “information”. In reviewing these error types through the root cause analysis (RCA) approach, we were able to identify the contributors to these errors which included single data review points, changing product end goals, limited software selection, time constraints and several others. By reviewing and evaluating the underlying causes we can provide possible system improvements that can be implemented for current and future data management in PRA model inputs.

A. Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensitivity Analysis of the Human Research Program’s Impact 1.0 Model

Sensitivity analysis estimates the relative contribution of the uncertainty in input values to the uncertainty of model outputs. Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient (PRCC) and Leave One Out (LOO) are methods of conducting sensitivity analysis on non-linear simulation models like the IMPACT Model. The PRCC method estimates the sensitivity using partial correlation of the ranks of the generated input values to each generated output value. The “partial” part is due to the adjustments made for the linear effects of all the other input values in the calculation of correlation between a particular input and each output. LOO removes a medical condition from test suite and calculates the change in the outcome. This is used to identify the influence of the condition input in the model The inputs to the sensitivity procedures include the number of occurrences of each of the one hundred plus IMPACT medical conditions generated over the simulations, and the IMPACT outputs from the MEDPRAT mathematical model. The outputs total task time lost (TTL), number of return to definitive care (RTDC), and number of loss of crew lives (LOCL). The IMPACT team will report the results of using PRCC and LOO on IMPACT 1.0. Tornado plots will assist in the visualization of the condition-related input sensitivities to each of the main outcomes. The outcomes of this sensitivity analysis will drive review focus by identifying conditions where changes in uncertainty, and input values could drive changes in overall model output uncertainty. These efforts are an integral part of the overall verification, validation, and credibility review of IMPACT 1.0.

Sensitivity Anaylsis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact Real World System Validation

Introduction NASA has developed a new evidence-based data-driven probabilistic risk assessment and tradespace analysis tool as a successor to the Integrated Medical Model. This updated decision support tool is known as IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces). IMPACT estimates the frequency and consequences of medical conditions that might arise during exploration missions. A validation analysis of IMPACT was performed with respect to a set of International Space Station (ISS) and Shuttle Transportation System (STS) real world system (RWS) referent data due to the limited referent data available from exploration missions. Methods Observed mission and crew characteristics from STS and ISS missions were used as model inputs within MEDPRAT (Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool). For each mission, two hundred thousand simulations were generated. For each mission, model outputs included occurrence counts for each condition, total medical events (TME), and the probability of loss of crew life (LOCL). These simulated model outputs were compared to the RWS referent data. Results The predicted number of total medical events exceeded the total RWS medical events for ISS missions and combined ISS and STS missions and fell within the 90% confidence interval for STS missions. For the 32 ISS missions simulated by IMPACT, the number of total medical events was overpredicted for 19 missions and fell within the 90% confidence interval for 13 missions. For the 21 STS missions, the total number of medical events was overpredicted for 3 missions, fell within the 90% confidence interval for 16 missions, and was underpredicted for 2 missions. Combined, 29 missions were in range, 22 were overpredicted, and 2 were underpredicted. The predicted LOCL probability for the 32 ISS missions, the 21 STS missions, and the combined ISS and STS missions was consistent with the zero LOCL events observed in the RWS referent data. The validation analysis included a comparison of the number of medical events predicted by IMPACT and the number of medical events observed in the RWS data on a condition-by-condition basis. For ISS missions, 50 conditions were in range, 52 conditions were statistically underpowered (not enough observed sample to draw any conclusions on precision), 8 conditions were overpredicted, and 9 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 14% (17/119) of conditions were out of range for STS missions, 40 conditions were in range, 59 conditions were statistically underpowered, 10 conditions were overpredicted, and 10 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 17% (20/119) of conditions were out of range. For combined ISS and STS missions, 11 conditions were overpredicted, and 11 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, only 18% (22/119) of conditions were out of range. For combined ISS and STS missions, 49 conditions were in range, 46 conditions were statistically underpowered, 18 conditions were overpredicted, and 8 conditions were underpredicted. Overall, 21% (26/121) of conditions were out of range. Conclusion The results of this validation analysis should not be interpreted as a pass/fail test of the validity of IMPACT. Instead, this validation analysis should be used to assess some of the IMPACT outcomes in terms of consistencies and inconsistencies with the ISS and STS RWS referent data.

L. Boley↗