Chemoinformatics-Based Classification of Prohibited Substances Employed for Doping in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representative molecules from 10 classes of prohibited substances were taken from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list, augmented by molecules from corresponding activity classes found in the MDDR database. Together with some explicitly allowed compounds, these formed a set of 5245 molecules. Five types of fingerprints were calculated for these substances. The random forest classification method was used to predict membership of each prohibited class on the basis of each type of fingerprint, using 5-fold cross-validation. We also used a k-nearest neighbors (kNN) approach, which worked well for the smallest values of k. The most successful classifiers are based on Unity 2D fingerprints and give very similar Matthews correlation coefficients of 0.836 (kNN) and 0.829 (random forest). The kNN classifiers tend to give a higher recall of positives at the expense of lower precision. A naïve Bayesian classifier, however, lies much further toward the extreme of high recall and low precision. Our results suggest that it will be possible to produce a reliable and quantitative assignment of membership or otherwise of each class of prohibited substances. This should aid the fight against the use of bioactive novel compounds as doping agents, while also protecting athletes against unjust disqualification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".