Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use in Sports, Health, and Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This consensus statement is an update of the 1987 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) position stand on the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). Substantial data have been collected since the previous position stand, and AAS use patterns have changed significantly. The ACSM acknowledges that lawful and ethical therapeutic use of AAS is now an accepted mainstream treatment for several clinical disorders; however, there is increased recognition that AAS are commonly used illicitly to enhance performance and appearance in several segments of the population, including competitive athletes. The illicit use of AAS by competitive athletes is contrary to the rules and ethics of many sport governing bodies. Thus, the ACSM deplores the illicit use of AAS for athletic and recreational purposes. This consensus statement provides a brief history of AAS use, an update on the science of how we now understand AAS to be working metabolically/biochemically, potential side effects, the prevalence of use among athletes, and the use of AAS in clinical scenarios.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".