The Athlete Biological Passport: an integral element of innovative strategies in antidoping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern for the health of athletes and integrity of sport resulted in the banning of specific substances although many years passed before analytical testing took place. Soon doping control programmes became synonymous with urine tests and adverse analytical findings. This system has its limits due to the detection window of prohibited substances, the timing of sample collections and the sophistication of some doping regimens. There have been a number of situations where these limits were demonstrated by athletes who proclaimed innocence based on passing their analytical tests only to later confess to doping. New strategies were called for to protect clean athletes. In the current World Anti-Doping Code, there are eight means to an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). Article 2.2 states that the use of a prohibited substance may be established by any reliable means including witness statements, documentary evidence or evaluations of longitudinal profiling. In 2006, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the support of some International Federations (IFs) gathered a group of experts to develop a harmonised programme on longitudinal profiling, or serial analysis of indirect biomarkers of doping, that was both scientifically and legally robust. This culminated in the WADA Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Operating Guidelines and Technical Documents, published in 2009. The ABP is a paradigm that infers the use of prohibited substance (or method) by the monitoring of discriminant biomarkers over time. The haematological module detects blood manipulation by the use of erythropoietic stimulating agents or via blood transfusions. The steroidal module aims to identify endogenous anabolic androgenic steroids when administered exogenously and other indirect steroid doping substances or methods. Other ABP modules (endocrine, 'omics') are being developed. The term passport, first coined in 2000, is now defined in the ABP Guidelines as the longitudinal profile and all other relevant information including training, competitions and information derived from investigations. In the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, investigations or enquiries gathered from other sources will play an even more prominent role.
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 | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".