ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2022
Future opportunities for the Athlete Biological Passport.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiogenic Doping: Plausible Yet Difficult to Detect.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Performance-Enhancing Effects of Inhaled Medications: Implications for Heart, Muscle Function, and Doping Detection in Athletes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- Estimation of Plasma Volume by Machine Learning to Improve the Interpretation of the Athlete Biological Passport.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Article
- Adulteration of Sports Supplements with Anabolic Steroids-From Innocent Athlete to Vicious Cheater.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Prohibited Olympic Medalist with PIEZO1 VUS Who Claims Innocence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Establishing Personalized Blood Protein Reference Ranges Using Noninvasive Microsampling and Targeted Proteomics: Implications for Antidoping Strategies.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Athlete biological passport: longitudinal biomarkers and statistics in the fight against doping.Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was introduced to complement the direct anti-doping approach by indirectly outlining the possible use of prohibited substances or methods in sports. The ABP proved its effectiveness, at least through a deterrent effect, even though the matrices used for longitudinal monitoring (urine and blood) are subject to many intrinsic (e.g., genetic) and extrinsic (e.g., environmental conditions) confounding factors. In that context, new and more specific biomarkers are currently under development to enhance both the sensitivity and the specificity of the ABP. Multiple strategies are presently being explored to improve this longitudinal monitoring, with the development of the current modules, the investigation of new strategies, or the screening of new types of doping. Nevertheless, due to the variability induced by indirect biomarkers, the consideration of confounding factors should continuously support this research. Beyond tremendous advances in analytical sensitivity, machine learning-based approaches seem inevitable to facilitate an expert interpretation of numerous biological profiles and promote anti-doping efforts. This perspective article highlights the current innovations of the Athlete Biological Passport that seem the most promising. Through different research axes, this short manuscript provides an opportunity to bring together approaches that are more widely exploited (e.g., omics strategies) and others in the early stages of investigation (e.g., artificial intelligence) seeking to develop the ABP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.