Significant increase of salivary testosterone levels after single therapeutic transdermal administration of testosterone: suitability as a potential screening parameter in doping control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legally defensible proof of the abuse of endogenous steroids in sports is currently based on carbon isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), i.e. a comparison between (13)C/(12)C ratios of diagnostic precursors and metabolites of testosterone. The application of this technique requires a chromatographic baseline separation of respective steroids prior to IRMS detection and hence laborious sample pre-processing of the urinary steroid extracts including clean up by solid-phase extraction and/or liquid chromatography. Consequently, an efficient pre-selection of suspicious control urine samples is essential for appropriate follow up confirmation by IRMS and effective doping control. Two single transdermal administration studies of testosterone (50 mg Testogel® and Testopatch® at 3.8 mg in 16 h, respectively) were conducted and resulting profiles of salivary testosterone and urinary steroid profiles and corresponding carbon isotope ratios were determined. Conventional doping control markers (testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, threshold concentrations of androsterone, etiocholanolone, or androstanediols) did not approach or exceed critical thresholds. In contrast to these moderate variations, the testosterone concentration in oral fluid increased from basal values (30-142 pg/mg) to peak concentrations above 1000 pg/mg. It is likely that this significant increase in oral fluid is due to a pulsatile elevation of free (protein unbound) circulating testosterone after transdermal administration and may be assumed to represent a more diagnostic marker for transdermal testosterone administration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".