MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transcriptional profiling: a potential anti‐doping strategy

2009· review· en· W2082595042 on OpenAlexaff
Jim L. Rupert

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Computational biologyMedicineChemistryBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolving challenges require evolving responses. The use of illicit performance enhancing drugs by athletes permeates the reality and the perception of elite sports. New drugs with ergogenic or masking potential are quickly adopted, driven by a desire to win and the necessity of avoiding detection. To counter this trend, anti-doping authorities are continually refining existing assays and developing new testing strategies. In the post-genome era, genetic- and molecular-based tests are being evaluated as potential approaches to detect new and sophisticated forms of doping. Transcriptome analysis, in which a tissue's complement of mRNA transcripts is characterized, is one such method. The quantity and composition of a tissue's transcriptome is highly reflective of milieu and metabolic activity. There is much interest in transcriptional profiling in medical diagnostics and, as transcriptional information can be obtained from a variety of easily accessed tissues, similar approaches could be used in doping control. This article briefly reviews current understanding of the transcriptome, common methods of global analysis of gene expression and non-invasive sample sources. While the focus of this article is on anti-doping, the principles and methodology described could be applied to any research in which non-invasive, yet biologically informative sampling is desired.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207