Characterization of a non‐approved selective androgen receptor modulator drug candidate sold via the Internet and identification of <i>in vitro</i> generated phase‐I metabolites for human sports drug testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Potentially performance-enhancing agents, particularly anabolic agents, are advertised and distributed by Internet-based suppliers to a substantial extent. Among these anabolic agents, a substance referred to as LGD-4033 has been made available, comprising the core structure of a class of selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs). METHODS: In order to provide comprehensive analytical data for doping controls, the substance was obtained and characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) and liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization high resolution/high accuracy tandem mass spectrometry (LC/ESI-HRMS). Following the identification of 4-(2-(2,2,2-trifluoro-1-hydroxyethyl)pyrrolidin-1-yl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzonitrile, the substance was subjected to in vitro metabolism studies employing human liver microsomes and Cunninghamella elegans (C. elegans) preparations as well as electrochemical metabolism simulations. RESULTS: By means of LC/ESI-HRMS, five main phase-I metabolites were identified as products of liver microsomal preparations including three monohydroxylated and two bishydroxylated species. The two most abundant metabolites (one mono- and one bishydroxylated product) were structurally confirmed by LC/ESI-HRMS and NMR. Comparing the metabolic conversion of 4-(2-(2,2,2-trifluoro-1-hydroxyethyl)pyrrolidin-1-yl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzonitrile observed in human liver microsomes with C. elegans and electrochemically derived metabolites, one monohydroxylated product was found to be predominantly formed in all three methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the intact SARM-like compound and its presumed urinary phase-I metabolites into routine doping controls is suggested to expand and complement existing sports drug testing methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".