Comparison of urine analysis and dried blood spot analysis for the detection of ephedrine and methylephedrine in doping control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the misuse of stimulants is determined in doping control tests conducted during the in-competition period, athletes are asked to account for the violation of the rules. This study was designed to evaluate whether the urinary threshold values (10 µg/mL) for ephedrine and methylephedrine set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) can be exceeded after the oral administration of each substance (25 mg). In addition, the study describes the validity of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric method using dried blood spot testing to detect ephedrine and methylephedrine by comparing it to a quantitative laboratory urine assay. After administration of ephedrine, the urinary concentration of ephedrine did not exceed the threshold at 4-10 h in two subjects, whereas the threshold was exceeded in both the subjects at 12 h after administration. For methylephedrine, the urinary concentrations of all the subjects failed to reach the threshold for up to 10 h after administration. The concentrations reached the threshold at 12-24 h after administration in some volunteers. In contrast, the blood concentrations of ephedrine and methylephedrine reached their maximum levels at 2-8 h after administration. The blood concentrations showed a low inter-individual variability, and the results suggested that the urinary excretion of ephedrine and methylephedrine can be strongly affected by urine pH and/or urine volume. These facts suggest that urinary concentrations cannot reflect the psychoactive level of ephedrines in circulation. Thus, dried blood analysis might be suitable for the adequate detection of stimulants during in-competition testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".