Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The problems of doping in sport and the increasing use of nutritional supplements by athletes are issues that intersect to the degree that a large number of supplements may contain substances that are banned in sport. Many supplements contain substances that are associated with significant health hazards. Athletes consuming such supplement products may jeopardize their sporting status, and their health. OBJECTIVES: To clarify and summarize the current status of dietary supplements in general, and to describe specific problems that can be associated with supplement use so that sport physicians might be better prepared to address these issues with their athlete-patients. DATA SOURCE: An analysis of recent and relevant literature accessed through MEDLINE, and interactions with clinicians, laboratory scientists, colleagues, and athletes. CONCLUSIONS: The dietary supplement industry is completely unregulated in the United States; as a consequence, an abundance of supplement products of dubious value, content, and quality are now available around the world. It is known that many supplement products contain substances that are prohibited in sport-typically stimulants or anabolic steroid precursors. Many supplements contain substances (e.g., ephedrine) that have been associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Sport practitioners have particular responsibilities in addressing this issue. Athletes need to be aware of the problems that can follow supplement use, and sport authorities need to ensure that nutritional education and guidance for athletes is of the highest standard. The need for the appropriate regulation of dietary supplements is emphasized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".