Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41844716›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Detection of sample swapping in anti-doping investigations using machine learning.

Maxx Richard Rahman, Thomas Piper, Mario Thevis, Wolfgang Maass

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maxx Richard RahmanGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany. maxx_richard.rahman@dfki.de.
Thomas PiperGerman Sport University Cologne (DSHS), Cologne, Germany.
Mario ThevisGerman Sport University Cologne (DSHS), Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang MaassGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The substitution of a urine sample that may result in an adverse analytical finding with a previously collected, clean sample is strictly prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regulations and is referred to as sample swapping. When an athlete reuses their own clean sample, detection becomes particularly difficult through conventional analytical methods. In this paper, we propose a similarity detection framework that explicitly accounts for pattern complexity in the analysis of urinary steroid profiles. The framework is based on a convolutional network to capture more complex and subtle variations in profile pairs. Using a dataset of 67,651 steroid profiles collected between 2021 and 2023, the framework was evaluated on both synthetic and laboratory-confirmed similar samples, reflecting realistic variability in doping control processes. The results show that the proposed framework outperforms several baseline models, achieving higher accuracy compared to different baselines. These findings demonstrate the potential of machine learning to improve anti-doping workflows by enabling the automated detection of reused or identical urine samples within large-scale sample collection managed by the Athlete Biological Passport.

Indexed as

Doping in SportsMachine LearningSteroidsSubstance Abuse DetectionHumansUrinalysisSteroids

Identifiers

PMID41844716
PMCPMC13000201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.