A simplified and accurate method for the analysis of urinary metabolites of testosterone‐related steroids using gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The analysis of urinary metabolites of testosterone-related steroids through the measurement of their carbon isotopic signature (δ(13) C) by gas chromatography/combustion/mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) is a confirmation method employed in doping control analyses. Stringent analytical conditions are essential to an accurate and precise analysis as well as the proper selection of the metabolites, which forms the basis of the refined method presented in this paper. METHODS: In a simplified approach, following enzymatic hydrolysis and extraction from a relatively low volume of urine sample, a one-step high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) purification was developed for seven diagnostic urinary metabolites (TS) including testosterone itself, dehydroepiandrosterone, 5α- and 5β-androstanediol, epitestosterone, androsterone, etiocholanolone and two endogenous reference compounds (ERC), 5β-pregnanediol and 5α-androst-16-en-3β-ol. These steroids were pooled in three fractions and analyzed as such. With regards to the GC/C/IRMS analysis, a multi-level isotopic calibration using the 'identical treatment' principle was created. RESULTS: The proposed isotopic calibration yielded results for purified reference steroids with a precision ≤0.15 and accuracy of ≤0.30 ‰ (between-assay, n = 26). Compared to other common endogenous reference compounds, those selected in this study had δ(13) C values close to the target metabolites which, along with the proposed isotopic calibration, produced narrow reference intervals within ± 3‰ for most diagnostic TS-ERC pairs, in compliance with the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Agency. CONCLUSIONS: These carefully controlled analytical conditions are compatible with routine operations, affording accurate and precise results for the more diagnostically relevant metabolites such as testosterone itself and the 5α- and 5β-androstanediols. The values of the TS-ERC pairs measured in reference populations are described and the results from the routine testing of several hundreds of athletes' samples are discussed. Robust, this technique permitted the detection of adverse findings that would have been missed had these low level metabolites not been analyzed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".