Impact of Changes in Anti-doping Regulations (WADA Guidelines) on Asthma Care in Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how changes to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidelines on asthma medication requests have impacted the management of asthmatic athletes in Portugal. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of asthma medication requests submitted in 2008 to 2010. SETTING: Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority database. PARTICIPANTS: Athletes requesting the use of inhaled corticosteroids and/or β2-agonists. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Demographic, therapeutic, and diagnostic test data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Yearly changes in number of asthma medication requests and diagnostic procedures. RESULTS: We analyzed 326 requests: 173 abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) in 2008 (objective tests not required), 9 Declaration of Use (DoU) and 76 TUEs in 2009, and 39 DoU and 29 TUEs in 2010. Spirometry was performed in 87% and 37% of athletes in 2009 and 2010, respectively; the corresponding figures for bronchoprovocation were 59% and 16%, almost all positive in both years. CONCLUSIONS: Applications for inhaler use have decreased by approximately half since objective asthma testing became mandatory. Our findings show that WADA guidelines have an impact on asthmatic athletes care: In 2009 a more rigorous screening was possible, leading to withdrawal of unnecessary medication. Constant changes, however, jeopardize this achievement and nowadays introduce safety issues stemming from the unsupervised use of inhaled β2-agonists.
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 | 0.002 | 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".