Doping control container for urine stabilization: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urine collection containers used in the doping control collection procedure do not provide a protective environment for urine, against degradation by microorganisms and proteolytic enzymes. An in-house chemical stabilization mixture was developed to tackle urine degradation problems encountered in human sport samples, in cases of microbial contamination or proteolytic activity. The mixture consists of antimicrobial substances and protease inhibitors for the simultaneous inactivation of a wide range of proteolytic enzymes. It has already been tested in lab-scale, as part of World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) funded research project, in terms of efficiency against microbial and proteolytic activity. The present work, funded also by WADA, is a follow-up study on the improvement of chemical stabilization mixture composition, application mode and limitation of interferences, using pilot urine collection containers, spray-coated in their internal surface with the chemical stabilization mixture. Urine in plastic stabilized collection containers have been gone through various incubation cycles to test for stabilization efficiency and analytical matrix interferences by three WADA accredited Laboratories (Athens, Ghent, and Rome). The spray-coated chemical stabilization mixture was tested against microorganism elimination and steroid glucuronide degradation, as well as enzymatic breakdown of proteins, such as intact hCG, recombinant erythropoietin and small peptides (GHRPs, ipamorelin), induced by proteolytic enzymes. Potential analytical interferences, observed in the presence of spray-coated chemical stabilization mixture, were recorded using routine screening procedures. The results of the current study support the application of the spray-coated plastic urine container, in the doping control collection procedure. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".