MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969781411 · doi:10.1021/ac100128c

Toward the Use of a Molecularly Imprinted Polymer in Doping Analysis: Selective Preconcentration and Analysis of Testosterone and Epitestosterone in Human Urine

2010· article· en· W1969781411 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bernadette Tse Sum Bui, Franck Merlier, Karsten Haupt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsChemistryEpitestosteroneMolecularly imprinted polymerChromatographyUrineAndrogenOrganic chemistrySelectivityBiochemistryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP), templated with methyltestosterone, has been synthesized for the cleanup of hydrolyzed urine samples for subsequent testosterone (T) quantification by LC-MS/MS. A concentration of 2 ng/mL testosterone could be quantified after a single step extraction on the MIP. The limit of detection and quantification with the criteria of a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 and 5 were 0.3 and 2 ng/mL, respectively. These values meet the conditions set by the World Anti-Doping Agency for the minimum required performance limits for doping controls, between 2 and 10 ng/mL. Epitestosterone (E) was also separated on this polymer and could be detected at concentrations down to 0.3 ng/mL. The quantification of T and E gives access to the determination of the T/E ratio, essential in doping analysis. Hence, our polymers can offer a more specific extraction procedure, resulting in increased sensitivity with limits of detection 10 times lower than the ones achieved by the standard SPE C(18) sorbents employed in official testing laboratories.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207