MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620792230 · doi:10.1159/000460722

The Athlete Biological Passport: How to Personalize Anti-Doping Testing across an Athlete's Career?

2017· article· en· W2620792230 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Robinson, Pierre‐Edouard Sottas, Yorck Olaf Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine and sport science/Medicine and sport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsWorld Anti-Doping Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePersonalizationAthletesBiomarkerPersonalized medicinePerformance enhancementErythropoietinBioinformaticsInternal medicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceBiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, drug testing has been the main instrument at the disposal of anti-doping authorities. The availability in the 1980s of substances identical to those produced by the human body, including the "big 3" (erythropoietin, testosterone, and growth hormone), necessitated a new paradigm in anti-doping. The athlete biological passport (ABP) is a new paradigm, complementary to traditional drug testing, based on the personalized monitoring of doping biomarkers. Athletes who abuse doping substances do so to trigger physiological changes that provide performance enhancement. The ABP aims to detect these changes through its 3 hematological, steroidal, and endocrine modules. Any deviation of a biomarker from what is expected in a healthy physiological condition can be attributable to doping or a medical condition, which, interestingly, is also the criterion used to define a banned substance. Recent advances in proteomics and metabolomics offer immense opportunities to enhance the ABP. The ABP shares multiple aspects with the present customization of health care and personalized medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine and sport science/Medicine and sportSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207