β-2 Agonists in sport: are the anti-doping rules meeting the needs of asthmatic athletes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (a) To review the methacholine tests performed in our laboratory up until 2008; (b) to compare them with previously reported data in 2006 and (c) to examine if the anti-doping rules are meeting the needs of asthmatic athletes who really need bronchodilator treatment. METHODS: Between April 2004 and September 2008, 89 high-level athletes were examined in our laboratory in order to obtain an abbreviated therapeutic use exemption for β-2 agonists. Of these, 50 men (23.31 (7.05) years) and 23 women (20.68 (5.94) years) performed a methacholine inhalation test with increasing concentrations of methacholine (0.025, 0.25, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25 mg/ml) until a fall of 20% in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) was achieved. RESULTS: 31 candidates (42.5%) had a provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) (PC(20)) <2 mg/ml; 12 (16.4%) were between 2 and 4 mg/ml; 8 (11%) between 4.1 and 8 mg/ml and 22 candidates (30.1%) had a PC(20) >8 mg/ml. Seven of the 73 candidates had an obstructive pattern in the spirometry at rest, demonstrated by a FEV(1)% <70% but with a FEV(1) >70% of the reference value. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-doping regulations with respect to β-2 agonists need to be reviewed, and measures should be adopted to include a fall of 70% in FEV(1)% as an obstruction criterion to indicate a bronchodilation test and to extend the criterion for a positive methacholine test to a PC(20) of 8 mg/ml.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".