Comparison of immunohematological profile between endurance- and power-oriented elite athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is general perception that elite athletes are highly susceptible to changes in immunohematological profile. The objective of this study was to compare immunohematological parameters of elite athletes of different aerobic and muscular strength sports and analyze changes over 2 months. Sixteen judoists and 14 swimmers were evaluated 2 months before (M1) and immediately prior to competition (M2). Hemogram and lymphocytes subpopulations were assessed with automatic counter and flow cytometry, respectively. Judoists had higher neutrophils and lower monocytes and eosinophils percentages than swimmers at M1 and M2. At M2 judoists had lower red blood cells (RBC), hemoglobin, and hematocrit than swimmers. At M2 judoists' hematocrit and CD16 decreased while swimmers' hemoglobin and hematocrit increased. In conclusion, neither sports characteristics nor intense training seem to displace the athletes' immunohematological profile out of the clinical range, despite the possibility of occurrence of microlesions that may stimulate production of leukocytes and reduction of RBC in judoists.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".