Infographic. Doping without drugs: how para-athletes may self-harm to boost performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This infographic provides a summary of the use of boosting by athletes with spinal cord injury (SCI); its causes, warning signs and dangers, and the current approach of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) to testing. Boosting is the intentional induction of autonomic dysreflexia (AD) to enhance performance. AD is a potentially life-threatening condition experienced by many individuals with a SCI, typically at or above the T6 spinal level. It is characterised by a sudden increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) >20 mm Hg above baseline due to a noxious or non-noxious stimuli below the level of injury, that excites sympathetic preganglionic neurons resulting in vasoconstriction of blood vessels in the lower extremities and trunk.1 Triggers include, but are not limited to, bladder distension, injury or an innocuous stimulus (eg, a tight shoelace or belt) below the level of injury. Without prompt resolution, severe cases of AD may result in cerebral haemorrhage, myocardial ischaemia, seizures, arrhythmias or death.2 While prolonged hypertensive crises are rare in athletes, repetitive asymptomatic AD events present a substantial long-term health consequence and may partially explain the heighted cardiovascular mortality risk in individuals with SCI.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.206 | 0.080 |
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".