Testing for boosting at the Paralympic games: policies, results and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 'Boosting' is defined as the intentional induction of autonomic dysreflexia (AD) by athletes with a spinal cord injury (SCI) at or above the level of T6 for the purpose of improving sports performance. Boosting has been shown to confer up to a 9.7% improvement in race time. Additionally, to compete in a hazardous dysreflexic state, whether intentional or unintentional, would present an extreme health risk to the athlete. For these reasons, the International Paralympic Committee strictly bans the practice of boosting, and has developed a protocol to test for its presence. METHODS: Testing was performed at three major international Paralympic events. Education regarding the dangers of AD was provided to athletes and team staff. Testing was conducted on athletes from the relevant sport classes: Athletics (wheelchair racing classes T51/T52/T53) and Handcycling (H1). Key parameters included the athlete's demographics (gender, country of origin), classification and blood pressure measurements. An extremely elevated blood pressure was considered to be a proxy maker for AD, and a systolic blood pressure of ≥180 mm Hg was considered a positive test. RESULTS: A total of 78 tests for the presence of AD were performed during the three games combined. No athlete tested positive. The number of athletes tested, by classification, was: 6 in Athletics T51, 47 in Athletics T52, 9 in Athletics T53 and 16 in Handcycling H1. Of those tested, the average systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 135 mm Hg (range 98-178) and 82 mm Hg (range 44-112), respectively. All athletes were compliant with testing. No athletes were withdrawn from competition due to the presence of AD. DISCUSSION: Testing for the presence of AD in paralympic athletes with SCI prior to competition has been carried out for the first time at three major international paralympic competitions. There have been no positive tests thus far. Knowledge gained during these early testing experiences will be used to guide ongoing refinement of the testing protocol and the development of further educational initiatives.
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 | 0.081 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".