Analysis of dried blood spots is a feasible alternative for detecting ephedrine in doping control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dried blood spot (DBS) testing allows fast, easy and minimally invasive collection of microvolumes of blood. In an anti-doping context, DBS testing has particular relevance for substances prohibited in-competition only such as ephedrine, which is currently detected by urine analysis, because DBS can add information about the blood drug concentrations during the in-competition period. Several collection methods and devices exist for DBS collection from different anatomical sites. Thus, agreements between concentrations of target analytes in DBS samples from different sampling sites, along with between DBS and those in conventional venous plasma samples, need to be evaluated. Herein, we collected matched upper-arm DBS, fingerprick DBS and venous plasma samples from eight healthy male subjects in an 8-h period following oral administrations of 20 mg ('low dose') and 60 mg ('high dose') of ephedrine. We show that the use of alternative sampling sites and matrices is a feasible possibility for ephedrine analysis in doping control. We observed very good agreement between collection sites and that specificity and sensitivity can be upheld despite use of an alternative collection site. However, potential concentration differences between DBS and venous plasma should be considered, and distinct threshold might be necessary if implementing both blood matrices in ephedrine analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".