Detection of Erythropoietin in Blood to Uncover Doping in Sports using Machine Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports officials around the world are facing challenges due to the unfair nature of doping practices used by unscrupulous athletes to improve their performance. This prac-tice includes blood transfusion, intake of anabolic steroids or even hormone-based drugs like erythropoietin to increase their strength, endurance, and ultimately their performance. While direct detection and identification of erythropoietin in blood samples of athletes have proven an effective means to uncover doping, not all the cases are easily detectable, and some analyses are too costly to be carried out on every sample. This leads to a need to develop an indirect method for detecting erythropoietin in blood samples based on different blood biomarkers. In this paper, we presented a comparison of different machine learning algorithms combined with statistical analysis approaches to identify the presence of erythropoietin drug in blood samples collected at both sea level and moderate altitude. The results presented indicate that ensemble methods like random forest and X Gboost algorithms may provide an effective tool to aid anti-doping organisations in most effectively distributing scarce resources. Implementation of these methods on the samples from elite athletes may both enhance the deterrence effect of anti-doping as well as increases the likelihood of catching doped athletes.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it