P427 SUPPLeX: appearance and performance-enhancing supplements use in people on pre-exposure ProphyLaXis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) may experience more body image dissatisfaction compared to heterosexual men. The desire to be muscular has been linked with use of appearance- and performance-enhancing supplements (APES), including muscle-building supplements, steroids, and fat-burning products. APES use has been associated with potential health risks including serious liver and renal abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to describe the use and safety of APES among people attending an ambulatory pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) clinic. Methods All participants ≥18 years on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine were included; pregnant subjects were excluded. Prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted between February 1, 2018 and September 30, 2018 to assess APES usage, and retrospective chart reviews were done to determine the rates of liver and renal abnormalities from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018. RUCAM and Naranjo scales were used to assess causality with liver and renal abnormalities, respectively. Results Among 50 participants (median 32 years, 52% Caucasian, 86% MSM), 72% reported lifetime APES use and 52% with recent (within the past 6 months) use (APES group). Only 28% had never used APES (non-APES group). APES and non-APES groups had similar rates of liver abnormalities (mostly Grade 1), but 2 (8%) APES participants experienced Grade 3-4 elevations compared to none in the non-APES group. Liver enzyme elevations were possibly associated with creatine (n=4), whey protein (n=3), steroids (n=2), and weight-loss supplements (n=2). In the APES group, 12% had elevated serum creatinine (all stage 1) compared to none in the non-APES group. Whey protein (n=2), creatine (n=1), steroids (n=1), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=1) were possibly associated with renal abnormalities. Conclusion APES usage among people on PrEP was high and possibly associated with liver and/or renal abnormalities. Increasing provider and consumer awareness of potential health risks of APES is encouraged to enhance safety. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".