The Incidence of Hematuria in Middle Distance Track Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to establish if middle distance track athletes experience hematuria during their competitive season interval workouts and, if so, what type of workout based on intensity and distance was most associated with hematuria. During a 4-week observational period, athletes (n = 10) underwent reagent strip urinalysis before and after their twice weekly interval sessions. Positive samples for hematuria were analyzed microscopically to accurately determine red blood cell (RBC) loss. Seventy-one individual interval workouts were observed, of which 32 cases of hematuria were reported. Nine cases of hematuria exhibited >100 RBC per High Power Field (Hpf). Furthermore, 90% of the athletes experienced post-workout hematuria at least once. The highest incidence of hematuria was observed after workouts run at 110% of VO(2peak) over short (600-1,500 m) to moderate (1,501-3,000 m) distances. All post-exercise cases of hematuria resolved within 2 hr of recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".