MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880221637 · doi:10.1002/dta.1378

Complementary stable carbon isotope ratio and amount of substance measurements in sports anti‐doping

2012· review· en· W1880221637 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adam Cawley, Adrian V. George

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Testing and Analysis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping AgencySouthern Cross UniversityAustralian GovernmentPartnership for Clean Competition
KeywordsIsotope-ratio mass spectrometryChemistryMass spectrometryGas chromatographyChromatographyContext (archaeology)CombustionDopingGas chromatography–mass spectrometryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Organic chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection of steroids originating from synthetic precursors against a background of their chemically identical natural analogues has proven to be a significant challenge for doping control laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The complementary application of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) has been demonstrated to provide specific detection of endogenous steroid misuse for improved anti-doping analysis. Markers of synthetically derived steroids are reviewed on the basis of abnormal urinary excretions and low (13)C content. A combinatorial approach is presented for the interpretation of GC-MS and GC-C-IRMS data in the anti-doping context. This methodology can allow all relevant information concerning an individual's metabolism to be assessed in order to make an informed decision with respect to a doping violation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Testing and AnalysisSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207