The impact of image and performance enhancing drugs on bi-ventricular structure and function in strength-trained athletes and the association to fat-free mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institute of Health Research Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement Background Image and performance enhancing drugs (IPED) cause cardiac enlargement and dysfunction. Previous work has not assessed impact of user status (current [CU] vs. past [PU]) or allometric scaling cardiac dimensions for individual differences in fat-free mass (FFM). Purpose To investigate CU and PU of IPED and allometric scaling on LV and RV remodeling in strength-trained athletes. Methods Thirty-four (29 ± 6 years; 82% male) strength-trained athletes were recruited. Fourteen were CU, 9 PU and 11 non-users (NU) of IPEDs. Participants underwent bioelectric impedance body composition analysis, IPED and training questionnaire and 2D echocardiography with strain imaging. All structural data was allometrically scaled to FFM according to the laws of geometric similarity. Results CU and PU had significantly higher FFM compared to NU (82.4 ± 10.1 kg vs. 72.0 ± 6.3 kg vs. 58.2 ± 14.0 kg). Absolute values of all RV and LV size were larger between CU and NU. LV mean wall thickness (MWT) was larger in CU compared to PU but there were no differences between PU and NU. Allometric scaling eliminated all differences with exception of LV mass and LVMWT. LVEF was significantly lower in CU and PU compared to NU (55 ± 3 vs. 57 ± 4 vs. 61 ± 4) whilst LV GLS was lower in CU compared to PU and NU and LV GCS was lower in CU compared to NU but not PU. There was no significant difference between groups for RV functional indices. Conclusion Strength-trained athletes currently using IPEDs have bi-ventricular enlargement as well as reduced LV function. Allometric scaling highlights that increased size is partially associated with a larger FFM, with exception of LVMWT which is independently increased through IPED use. PUs demonstrate reverse structural remodeling whilst functional differences partially remain. CU PU NU RVD1 (mm) 45 ± 5* 43 ± 6 37 ± 6 Scaled RVD1 (mm/kg^0.33) 10.5 ± 0.9 10.4 ± 1.5 9.7 ± 1.0 LVd (mm) 58 ± 7* 55 ± 4 50 ± 4 Scaled LVd (mm/kg^0.33) 13.4 ± 1.2 13.3 ± 0.7 13.1 ± 0.6 MWT (mm) 10 ± 1*” 8 ± 1 8 ± 1 Scaled MWT (mm/kg^0.33) 2.3 ± 0.2*” 2.0 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.2 LVEDV (ml) 169 ± 42* 135 ± 28 116 ± 28 Scaled LVEDV (ml/kg) 2.0 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.3 2.0 ± 0.2 LV Mass (g) 255 ± 85*” 179 ± 30 137 ± 40 LV mass index (g/kg) 3.1 ± 0.8* 2.5 ± 0.3 2.4 ± 0.4 * CU and NU “ CU and PU ^ PU and NU Abstract Figure. Myocardial strain imaging
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".