MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081227643 · doi:10.1080/02652030802627160

Presence and metabolism of endogenous androgenic–anabolic steroid hormones in meat-producing animals: a review

2009· review· en· W2081227643 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabolic steroidHormoneStandardizationNandroloneSteroidAnabolismPopulationAnabolic-Androgenic SteroidsMedicineTestosterone (patch)PhysiologyBiologyBioinformaticsEndocrinologyComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence and metabolism of endogenous steroid hormones in meat-producing animals has been the subject of much research over the past 40 years. While significant data are available, no comprehensive review has yet been performed. Species considered in this review are bovine, porcine, ovine, equine, caprine and cervine, while steroid hormones include the androgenic-anabolic steroids testosterone, nandrolone and boldenone, as well as their precursors and metabolites. Information on endogenous steroid hormone concentrations is primarily useful in two ways: (1) in relation to pathological versus 'normal' physiology and (2) in relation to the detection of the illegal abuse of these hormones in residue surveillance programmes. Since the major focus of this review is on the detection of steroids abuse in animal production, the information gathered to date is used to guide future research. A major deficiency in much of the existing published literature is the lack of standardization and formal validation of experimental approach. Key articles are cited that highlight the huge variation in reported steroid concentrations that can result when samples are analysed by different laboratories under different conditions. These deficiencies are in most cases so fundamental that it is difficult to make reliable comparisons between data sets and hence it is currently impossible to recommend definitive detection strategies. Standardization of the experimental approach would need to involve common experimental protocols and collaboratively validated analytical methods. In particular, standardization would need to cover everything from the demographic of the animal population studied, the method of sample collection and storage (especially the need to sample live versus slaughter sampling since the two methods of surveillance have very different requirements, particularly temporally), sample preparation technique (including mode of extraction, hydrolysis and derivatization), the end-point analytical detection technique, validation protocols, and the statistical methods applied to the resulting data. Although efforts are already underway (at HFL and LABERCA) to produce more definitive data and promote communication among the scientific community on this issue, the convening of a formal European Union working party is recommended.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.245 · 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