MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087936710 · doi:10.1002/rcm.1875

Identification of oral antidiabetics and their metabolites in human urine by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry—a matter for doping control analysis

2005· article· en· W2087936710 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mario Thevis, Hans Geyer, Wilhelm Schänzer

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManfred Donike Institut für DopinganalytikWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyUrineTandem mass spectrometryMass spectrometryElectrospray ionizationLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryAnalyteInsulinFragmentation (computing)MetaboliteBiochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1999, insulin belongs to the list of prohibited substances of the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Except for patients suffering from insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, the administration of insulin is not allowed. Therapeutics developed to treat non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus act as releasing factors of endogenously produced insulin or improve its efficiency mediating the glucose uptake into insulin-dependent tissues. Hence, these compounds are also relevant for sports drug testing, and a fast, robust, and sensitive assay was developed to identify 12 oral antidiabetic agents or respective hydroxylated metabolites in human urine. Urine specimens are enzymatically hydrolyzed; target analytes are extracted by liquid-liquid extraction and identified by means of liquid chromatography interfaced to tandem mass spectrometry by electrospray ionization. Detection limits of respective drugs ranged between 10 and 30 ng/mL, metabolites of therapeutics were characterized by diagnostic fragmentation pathways upon collisionally activated dissociation of protonated molecules, and general fragmentation routes were proposed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Communications in Mass SpectrometrySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207