Investigations into <i>Annona</i> fruit consumption as a potential source of dietary higenamine intake in the context of sports drug testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Higenamine is prohibited in sports as a β 2 ‐agonist by the World Anti‐Doping Agency. As a key component of a great variety of plants, including the Annonaceae family, one aim of this research project was to evaluate whether the ingestion of Annona fruit could lead to higenamine adverse analytical findings. Single‐dose administration studies including three Annona species (i.e., Annona muricata , Annona cherimola , and Annona squamosa ) were conducted, leading to higenamine findings below the established minimum reporting level (MRL) of 10 ng/mL in urine. In consideration of c max values (7.8 ng/mL) observed for higenamine up to 24 h, a multidose administration study was also conducted, indicating cumulative effects, which can increase the risk of exceeding the applicable MRL doping after Annona fruit ingestion. In this study, however, the MRL was not exceeded at any time point. Further, the major urinary excretion of higenamine in its sulfo‐conjugated form was corroborated, its stability in urine was assessed, and in the absence of reference material, higenamine sulfo‐conjugates were synthesized and comprehensively characterized, suggesting the predominant presence of higenamine 7‐sulfate. In addition, the option to include complementary biomarkers of diet‐related higenamine intake into routine doping controls was investigated. A characteristic urinary pattern attributed to isococlaurine, reticuline, and a yet not fully characterized bismethylated higenamine glucuronide was observed after Annona ingestion but not after supplement use, providing a promising dataset of urinary biomarkers, which supports the discrimination between different sources of urinary higenamine detected in sports drug testing programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".