MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884973924 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01005

Basal Endogenous Steroid Hormones, Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin, Physical Fitness, and Health Risk Factors in Young Adult Men

2018· article· en· W2884973924 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila S. Gagnon, Bradley C. Nindl, Jani P. Vaara, Matti Santtila, Keijo Häkkinen, Heikki Kyröläinen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex hormone-binding globulinInternal medicineEndocrinologyTestosterone (patch)HormoneBasal (medicine)Body mass indexPopulationWaistMedicineBiologyAndrogenDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Few large-scale population-based studies have adequately examined the relationships between steroid hormones, health status and physical fitness. The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship of serum basal endogenous steroid hormones (testosterone, TES; empirical free testosterone, EFT; cortisol, COR) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) to body composition, cardiovascular risk factors, and physical fitness in young healthy men. Methods: Male reservists (25±4 yrs, N=846) participated in the study. Basal TES, EFT, COR and SHBG were measured in morning fasted blood. Stepwise regression analyses were used to examine associations between individual hormones to four separate categories: 1) body composition; 2) cardiovascular risk factors; 3) relative, and 4) absolute physical fitness. Results: Higher TES, EFT, and SHBG were associated with lower waist circumference (TES: Beta= -0.239, p < 0.001; EFT: Beta= -0.385, p < 0.001), % body fat (TES: Beta= -0.163, p = 0.003), and body mass index (SHBG: Beta= -0.435, p < 0.001). Lower cardiovascular risk factors were associated with higher TES, EFT and SHBG concentrations, especially between SHBG and triglycerides (Beta = -0.277, p < 0.001) and HDL (Beta = 0.154, p < 0.001). Greater maximal relative aerobic capacity was concurrent with higher TES, EFT and SHBG (Beta = 0.171, 0.113, 0.263, p < 0.001, = 0.005, < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Higher basal concentrations of TES, EFT and SHBG were weakly associated with healthier body composition, fewer cardiovascular risk factors and greater relative aerobic capacity in healthy young men. It would be interesting to investigate whether these relationships are still evident after a few decades, and how different training modes (endurance, strength or their combination) positively affect physical fitness, body composition and their regulatory mechanisms over the decades.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207