MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Exogenous Growth Hormone Improve Athletic Performance?

2002· review· en· W2331364992 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesMedicineHuman growth hormoneGrowth hormonePlaceboCritical appraisalHormonePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEndocrinologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a critical appraisal of the literature to address the question of whether human growth hormone (HGH) improves performance in trained athletes. DATA SOURCES: Used PubMed using the search terms of "growth hormone athletes" and the reference lists of previous reviews of the subject. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of exogenous HGH on muscle power in trained athletes. Only one study matched the search criteria. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of increased muscle strength with HGH in trained athletes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207