Detection of doping with rhGH: Excretion study with WADA‐approved kits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) doping using the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) approved kits is reported in this research. Twenty-five young male students were selected and divided randomly into two groups with six belonging to the placebo and nineteen to the administration group. Thirteen volunteers in one group were administered with a Chinese preparation of rhGH while six volunteers included in the other group were given rhGH made in Switzerland. Both preparations were administered at a dose of 0.1 IU/kg body weight, one injection per day for 14 consecutive days. Blood samples were collected using WADA guidelines and all blood samples were analyzed with WADA-approved Kits 1 and 2. The time window for detection of rhGH doping using WADA-approved kits and criteria are discussed. Based on the comparison of the data obtained from this excretion study and from our routine (Chinese population as reference), consideration of the recent WADA criteria for rhGH AAF (Analytical Adverse Findings) is reported statistically. A comparison of data obtained from the two sample groups administered with pharmaceutical preparations, one Chinese rhGH (GenHeal®, S19990019, 1.6 mg (4 IU), Shanghai, China) obtained from prokaryotic cells and the other (Saizen®, S20080036, 1.33 mg (4 IU), Laboratoires Serone S.A., Switzerland) from eukaryotic cells is reported and did not show any significant difference for the detection of doping with rhGH.
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 | 0.000 | 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".