Hematological adaptations and detection of recombinant human erythropoietin combined with chronic hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated whether recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo) treatment combined with chronic hypoxia provided an additive erythropoietic response and whether the athlete biological passport (ABP) sensitivity improved with hypoxia. Two interventions were completed, each containing 4 weeks baseline, 4 weeks exposure at sea level or 2,320 m of altitude, and 4 weeks follow‐up. Participants were randomly assigned to 20 IU·kg bw −1 rhEpo or placebo injections every second day for 3 weeks during the exposure period at sea level (rhEpo n = 25, placebo n = 9) or at altitude (rhEpo n = 12, placebo n = 27). Venous blood was analyzed weekly. Combining rhEpo and hypoxia induced larger changes compared with rhEpo or hypoxia alone for [Hb] ( p < 0.001 and p > 0.05, respectively), reticulocyte percentage ( p < 0.001), and OFF‐hr score ( p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). The most pronounced effect was observed for reticulocyte percentage with up to ~35% ( p < 0.001) and ~45% ( p < 0.001) higher levels compared with rhEpo or hypoxia only, respectively. The ABP sensitivity for the combined treatment was 54 and 35 percentage points higher for [Hb] ( p < 0.05) and reticulocyte percentage ( p < 0.05), respectively, but similar for OFF‐hr score, compared with rhEpo at sea level. Across any time point, [Hb] and OFF‐hr score combined identified 14 unique true‐positive participants (56%) at sea level and 12 unique true‐positive participants (100%) at altitude. However, a concurrent reduction in specificity existed at altitude. In conclusion, rhEpo treatment combined with hypoxic exposure provided an additive erythropoietic response compared with rhEpo or hypoxic exposure alone. Correspondingly, ABP was more sensitive to rhEpo at altitude than at sea level, but a compromised specificity existed with hypoxic exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".