Hyperhydration using different hydration agents does not affect the haematological markers of the athlete biological passport in euhydrated volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is an indirect approach, implemented by WADA, aimed at detecting blood manipulation based on abnormal changes in haematological markers. Cases report the use of hyperhydration as masking method during anti-doping urine sample collection which could potentially mask suspicious fluctuations on ABP profiles. This study investigated the hyperhydration effect on haemoglobin concentration, reticulocyte percentage and OFF-hr score (an algorithm based on haemoglobin concentration and reticulocyte percentage), with and without recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) administration. A five-week clinical study performed; Baseline and rHuEPO Phase. Water and a sports drink were used as hyperhydration agents. To examine the hyperhydration effect on the normal ABP profile per volunteer, hyperhydration was implemented at 0, 24 and 48 hours during the baseline. During the rHuEPO phase, volunteers received Epoetin beta (3000 IU) with hyperhydration to be implemented at 0, 24 and 48 hours after drug administration. Blood and urine samples were collected and analysed according to WADA guidelines. No significant effect on ABP markers was observed due to hyperhydration at any time during the study. Pre- and post-hyperhydration data were not statistically different compared to individual baseline data. In conclusion, hyperhydration does not affect the ABP haematological markers under the examined conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".