7784 Perspectives Of Anabolic Steroid Users On Steroid Use, Side Effects, And Patient Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Disclosure: D.D. Lam: None. M. Potemkin: None. J. Kreutz: None. H. Shah: None. P. Patel: None. P.K. Doyle-Baker: None. Background: Details on first-hand perceived and experienced effects of anabolic steroids (AS) on users are sparse. Furthermore, there is limited information on what type of AS knowledge users possess, irrespective of current published works in AS pharmacology. This study aimed to identify insights of AS users regarding their knowledge and patterns of AS use, commonly experienced side effects, sources used for steroid education, and their unique needs as a population. Study Design: AS users from Calgary, Alberta, Canada of various sexes and ages ≥ 18 were recruited through gyms in Alberta with convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Participant-centered-qualitative research using semi-structured interviews was conducted. Participants discussed their experiences as a user and shared their understanding of AS, details of usage including compounds used, and their commonly experienced or perceived side effects through one-on-one interviews of varying durations. Interviews were coded using NVivo 14 Software prior to thematic analysis. Resulting codes were organized into overarching themes based on researchers' consensus. Results: Seven AS users were confidentially interviewed over Zoom. Several important themes emerged. There existed a wide variety of AS that users have identified, with some of the most commonly mentioned being Anavar, Nolvadex, Testosterone, and Trenbolone. Steroid users frequently identified increased strength with faster recovery from training and better overall appearance as prominent advantages of AS use. Conversely, hair loss, gynecomastia, acne, aggression, erectile dysfunction, altered libido, hypogonadism, infertility, and injection related discomfort were commonly identified disadvantages of AS use. Lastly, individuals using AS report having consulted many different sources to learn about appropriate dosing, techniques, and side effects. These sources ranged from peers, coaches, online forums, social media, and scientific research articles, but rarely included healthcare professionals. Conclusions: This study identified the need for education and research in exploring the impact of AS use. A variety of AS exist on the market, yet information pertaining to the side effect profiles of these AS from a patient’s perspective is lacking and exploration of this topic is warranted. Further investigation as to the impact of user education on their understanding of the risks versus the benefits of AS use must also be conducted. Presentation: 6/1/2024
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».