Urine concentrations of oral salbutamol in samples collected after intense exercise in endurance athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to investigate urine concentrations of 8 mg oral salbutamol in samples collected after intense exercise in endurance athletes. Nine male endurance athletes with a VO2max of 70.2 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg (mean ± SD) took part in the study. Two hours after administration of 8 mg oral salbutamol, subjects performed submaximal exercise for 15 min followed by two, 2-min exercise bouts at an intensity corresponding to 110% of VO2max and a bout to exhaustion at same intensity. Urine samples were collected 4, 8, and 12 h following administration of salbutamol. Samples were analyzed by the Norwegian World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) laboratory. Adjustment of urine concentrations of salbutamol to a urine specific gravity (USG) of 1.020 g/mL was compared with no adjustment according to WADA's technical documents. We observed greater (P = 0.01) urine concentrations of salbutamol 4 h after administration when samples were adjusted to a USG of 1.020 g/mL compared with no adjustment (3089 ± 911 vs. 1918 ± 1081 ng/mL). With the current urine decision limit of 1200 ng/mL for salbutamol on WADA's 2013 list of prohibited substances, fewer false negative urine samples were observed when adjusted to a USG of 1.020 g/mL compared with no adjustment. In conclusion, adjustment of urine samples to a USG of 1.020 g/mL decreases risk of false negative doping tests after administration of oral salbutamol. Adjusting urine samples for USG might be useful when evaluating urine concentrations of salbutamol in doping cases.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it