Simultaneous analysis of 210 prohibited substances in human urine by ultrafast liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry in doping control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Doping analysis is a two-step process consisting of a screening step for prohibited substances and a confirmation step to verify the presence of specific substances found during the screening. The entire process must be performed within a limited time period, but traditional screening procedures commonly employ separate analytical methods for each class of prohibited substances being screened and thus require a great deal of human resources and instrumentation. A single simple and rapid multiresidue analytical method that could accommodate multiple classes of prohibited substances would be extraordinarily useful in doping analyses. METHODS: Urine samples were extracted via two consecutive liquid-liquid extractions at different pH values following enzymatic hydrolysis. Analyses were performed by ultrafast liquid chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry with polarity switching and time-dependent selected reaction monitoring. RESULTS: We developed a rapid multiresidue screening and confirmation method for efficient high-throughput doping analyses. The present method was validated with regard to the limits of detection (0.01-100.0 ng/mL for screening analyses and 0.2-500.0 ng/mL for confirmation assays), matrix effects (48.9-118.9%), recovery (20.6-119.7%) and intra- (0.6-17.6%) and inter-day (4.0-20.0%) precision. CONCLUSIONS: A multiresidue analytical method was developed and validated for screening and confirming the presence of performance-enhancing drugs. A total of 210 substances from diverse classes of prohibited substances were successfully identified with an analytical run time of 10 min.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".