The Asthmatic Athlete, Inhaled Beta Agonists, and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The large increase in the number of athletes who apply to use inhaled beta agonists (IBAs) at the Olympic Games is a concern to the medical community. This review will examine the use of IBAs in the asthmatic athlete, the variability that exists between countries and sport, and outline a plan to justify the use of these medications. DATA SOURCES: Much of this article is a result of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Commission-sponsored meeting that took place in May 2001. Records of the use of IBAs at previous Olympics were reviewed. MEDLINE Searches (PubMed interface) were performed using key words to locate published work relating to asthma, elite athletes, performance, treatment, and ergogenic aids. MAIN RESULTS: Since 1984 there have been significant increases in the use of IBAs at the Olympic Games as well as marked geographical differences in the percentage of athletes requesting the use of IBAs. There are large differences in the incidence of IBA use between sports with a trend towards increased use in endurance sports. There are no ergogenic effects of any IOC-approved IBA given in a therapeutic dose. CONCLUSIONS: In many cases, the prescription of IBAs to this population has been made on empirical grounds. Beginning with the 2002 Winter Games, athletes will be required to submit to the IOC Medical Commission clinical and laboratory evidence that justifies the use of this medication. The eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea test will be used to assess individuals who have not satisfied an independent medical panel of the need to use an IBA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".