MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152516999 · doi:10.1002/dta.3045

Re‐evaluation of combined ((ES/EG)/(TS/TG)) ratio as a marker of testosterone intake in men

2021· article· en· W3152516999 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenny J. Schulze, Kim Pettersson‐Bohlin, John‐Olof Thörngren, Lena Ekström

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Testing and Analysis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsEpitestosteroneTestosterone (patch)EndocrinologyInternal medicineUrineAndrogenChemistryPopulationUrinary systemGlucuronideMedicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To detect doping with pseudo-endogenous anabolic steroids in sports, a urinary steroid profile with glucuronidated plus unconjugated androgens is used. In addition to analyze androgen glucuronide metabolites, it can be of interest to also include sulfate metabolites in the urinary steroid profile. The combined ratios of epitestosterone sulfate/epitestosterone glucuronide to the ratios of testosterone sulfate/testosterone glucuronide ((ES/EG)/(TS/TG)) have previously been investigated as a complementary biomarker for testosterone doping. In this restudy, the aim was to evaluate this biomarker in a larger study sample population. A single dose of 500-mg testosterone enanthate was administered to 54 healthy male volunteers. Urine was collected prior to (Day 0) administration and throughout 15 days and analyzed for the sulfate and glucuronide conjugates of testosterone and epitestosterone. The results show that the combined ratio increased to a larger extent than the traditional T/E ratio in all subjects. This increase was independent on UGT2B17 gene polymorphism. Moreover, a delayed peak of the combined ratio was observed in ~60% of the participants. The results confirm that complementary analyses of the sulfate metabolites may be a useful approach to detect testosterone doping in men.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Testing and AnalysisSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207