Effect of xenon and argon inhalation on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Xenon and argon inhalation were included on the WADA Prohibited List in 2014 due to the reported positive effects on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis that occur as a result of their application. Thus, the systematic review of studies supporting these notions is of interest. Methods: A thorough search on the effects of xenon and argon inhalation on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis, as well as their negative effects on human health and method detection was conducted. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases and the Cochrane Library were researched, as well as the WADA research section. The search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. All articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2021 were analyzed, as well as reference studies meeting the search criteria. Results: At present, there are only two publications in healthy human subjects evaluating the effects of xenon inhalation on erythropoiesis that found no conclusive evidence of a positive effect on erythropoiesis. This research was published following the inclusion of this gas on the WADA Prohibited List in 2014 and had a high risk of bias. There were no studies available on the effect of argon inhalation on erythropoiesis. Furthermore, no studies were found on the effect of xenon or argon inhalation on steroidogenesis in healthy subjects and no studies relating to the effects of xenon or argon inhalation on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis were found on the WADA website. Conclusion: There is still inconclusive evidence to support the administration of xenon and argon inhalations on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis and their positive effects on health. Further research is warranted to establish the effects of these gases. Additionally, improved communication between anti-doping authorities and all key stakeholders is required to support the inclusion of various substances on recognized prohibited lists.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".