MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031570564 · doi:10.3810/psm.2009.04.1690

Body Image, Disordered Eating, and Anabolic Steroids in Male Bodybuilders: Current versus Former Users

2009· article· en· W2031570564 on OpenAlexafffund
Gary S. Goldfield, D. Blake Woodside

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalAgricultural Research Institute of Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPerfectionism (psychology)Eating disordersPsychopathologyAnabolismPsychologyDisordered eatingClinical psychologyAthletesSteroid useAnabolic-Androgenic SteroidsDepression (economics)MedicineEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine body image, disordered eating, and psychological characteristics typically observed in people with eating disorders in current, former, and nonsteroid-using male bodybuilders. METHODS: Fifty bodybuilders recruited from local gymnasia completed anonymous questionnaires designed to assess eating attitudes, body image, weight and shape preoccupation, and general psychological characteristics. Ten subjects were classified as currently using anabolic-androgenic steroids, 12 were former users, and 28 had never used steroids. RESULTS: Compared with former users and non-users, current steroid users reported higher scores on weight and shape preoccupation, body dissatisfaction, drive for increased muscle tone, depression, ineffectiveness, perfectionism, and interpersonal distrust. No differences emerged between former users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS: Current but not previous anabolic-androgenic steroids use is associated with considerable body image disturbance, eating-related psychopathology, and poorer psychological adjustment. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207