The stimulant higenamine in weight loss and sports supplements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higenamine is a stimulant with cardiovascular properties recently prohibited in sport by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Higenamine is also a natural constituent of several traditional botanical remedies and is listed as an ingredient in weight loss and sports supplements sold over-the-counter in the United States. OBJECTIVES: We analyzed dietary supplements available for sale in the United States prior to WADA's prohibition of higenamine in sport for the presence and quantity of higenamine. METHODS: All supplements labeled as containing higenamine or a synonym (i.e., norcoclaurine or demethylcoclaurine) available for sale in the United States were identified. For each brand, one sample was analyzed by NSF International (Ann Arbor, MI) and one sample by the Netherland's National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). NSF International carried out qualitative and quantitative analyses using ultra high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) with tandem mass spectrometry. RIVM carried out qualitative analysis using UHPLC quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry for an independent confirmation of identity. RESULTS: Twenty-four products were analyzed. The majority of supplements were marketed as either weight loss (11/24; 46%) or sports/energy supplements (11/24; 46%); two brands did not list a labeled indication. The quantity of higenamine (±95% CI) ranged from trace amounts to 62 ± 6.0 mg per serving. Consumers could be exposed to up to 110 ± 11 mg of higenamine per day when following recommended serving sizes provided on the label. Five products (5/24; 21%) listed an amount of higenamine, but none were accurately labeled; the quantity in these supplements ranged from <0.01% to 200% of the quantity listed on the label. CONCLUSION: Dosages of up to 62 ± 6.0 mg per serving of the stimulant higenamine were found in dietary supplements sold in the United States.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".