Inhaled Salbutamol and Doping Control: Effects of Dose on Urine Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to examine the dose-response relationship of inhaled salbutamol and its concentration in the urine while resting at various times after inhalation, and to compare these values against the current World Anti-Doping Code limits. DESIGN: An interventional, repeated-measures design. SETTING: Sport Medicine Clinic, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, Canada). PARTICIPANTS: Eight healthy, nonasthmatic males participated in this study (age = 28 +/- 6 years, height = 179.4 +/- 5.1 cm, and weight = 77.4 +/- 5.4 kg). INTERVENTION: Administration of three different doses of inhaled salbutamol (800, 400, and 200 microg) in a randomized fashion separated by at least 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Urine concentration of nonsulphated salbutamol RESULTS: Urine concentrations were highly variable between subjects and increased as dose increased, with a significant difference noted between 800 and 200 microg at 30, 60, and 120 minutes after inhalation. Urine concentrations of salbutamol peaked at 60 minutes for all doses. No samples exceeded the doping criterion of 1000 ng/mL, and the maximum value observed was 904 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that after inhalation of doses up to 800 microg, urinary concentrations of salbutamol are well below the limits used in doping control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".