MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107684169 · doi:10.1093/jat/34.2.73

Confirming Urinary Excretion of Mephentermine and Phentermine Following the Ingestion of Oxethazaine by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis

2010· article· en· W2107684169 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wen‐Cheng Huang, Chin‐Hung Liu, R. H. Liu, Y. L. Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsPhentermineUrineIngestionExcretionMedicineAnesthesiaPharmacologyChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mephentermine and phentermine, substances prohibited in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency, were found for the first time in urine specimens following the administration of a therapeutic medication, oxethazaine. In a recent sporting event, a urine specimen donor who tested positive for mephentermine and phentermine claimed consumption of Mucaine((R)) for treating stomach pain was the reason for testing positive. Five volunteers were administrated oxethazaine (a topical anesthetic found in the multi-ingredient medication Mucaine and its generic equivalent, Stoin, both of which are available in Taiwan), mephentermine, and phentermine. Excretion profiles of mephentermine and phentermine following the administration of these drugs were found to be similar. However, the mephentermine/phentermine ratios found in urine specimens collected at different time points following the administration of oxethazine and mephentermine were found to be characteristically different.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.347 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207