Detection of testosterone esters in blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injections of synthetic esters of testosterone are among the most common forms of testosterone application. In doping control, the detection of an intact ester of testosterone in blood gives unequivocal proof of the administration of exogenous testosterone. The aim of the current project was to investigate the detection window for injected testosterone esters as a mixed substance preparation and as a single substance preparation in serum and plasma. Furthermore, the suitability of different types of blood collection devices was evaluated. Collection tubes with stabilizing additives, as well as non-stabilized serum separation tubes, were tested. A clinical study with six participants was carried out, comprising a single intramuscular injection of either 1000 mg testosterone undecanoate (Nebido(®)) or a mixture of 30 mg testosterone propionate, 60 mg testosterone phenylpropionate, 60 mg testosterone isocaproate, and 100 mg testosterone decanoate (Sustanon(®)). Blood was collected throughout a testing period of 60 days. The applied analytical method for blood analysis included liquid-liquid extraction and preparation of oxime derivatives, prior to TLX-sample clean-up and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) detection. All investigated testosterone esters could be detected in post-administration blood samples. The detection time depended on the type of ester administered. Furthermore, results from the study show that measured blood concentrations of especially short-chained testosterone esters are influenced by the type of blood collection device applied. The testosterone ester detection window, however, was comparable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".