Urine Concentrations of Repetitive Doses of Inhaled Salbutamol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined blood and urine concentrations of repetitive doses of inhaled salbutamol in relation to the existing cut-off value used in routine doping control. We compared the concentrations in asthmatics with regular use of beta2-agonists prior to study and healthy controls with no previous use of beta2-agonists. We enrolled 10 asthmatics and 10 controls in an open-label study in which subjects inhaled repetitive doses of 400 microgram salbutamol every second hour (total 1600 microgram), which is the permitted daily dose by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Blood samples were collected at baseline, 30 min, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 h after the first inhalations. Urine samples were collected at baseline, 0-4 h, 4-8 h, and 8-12 h after the first inhalations. Median urine concentrations peaked in the period 4-8 h after the first inhalations in the asthmatics and between 8-12 h in controls and the median ranged from 268 to 611 ng×mL (-1). No samples exceeded the WADA threshold value of 1000 ng×mL (-1) when corrected for the urine specific gravity. When not corrected one sample exceeded the cut-off value with urine concentration of 1082 ng×mL (-1). In conclusion we found no differences in blood and urine concentrations between asthmatic and healthy subjects. We found high variability in urine concentrations between subjects in both groups. The variability between subjects was still present after the samples were corrected for urine specific gravity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".