MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210676980 · doi:10.1177/08862605211073097

Performance-Enhancing Substance Use and Intimate Partner Violence: A Prospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4210676980 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle T. Ganson, Dylan B. Jackson, Alexander Testa, Jason M. Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentGillings School of Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsDomestic violencePoison controlMedicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionInjury preventionProspective cohort studySuicide preventionConfidence intervalCohort studyOccupational safety and healthDemographyPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has shown that performance-enhancing substance (PES) use, including anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), is associated with interpersonal violence (e.g., fighting). This study aimed to determine whether legal PES use and AAS use are associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) involvement cross-sectionally and over seven-year follow-up in a nationally representative prospective cohort study. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 12,288) were analyzed (2021). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the associations between legal PES use and AAS use at Wave III (2001-2002; ages 18-26) and IPV victimization (five variables) and IPV perpetration (five variables) at Wave III and Wave IV (2008-2009; ages 24-32), adjusting for relevant demographic and confounding variables. Results from cross-sectional analyses showed that legal PES use and AAS use were associated with higher odds of both any IPV victimization and sexual IPV victimization, and both any IPV perpetration and physical IPV perpetration by pushing or shoving a partner. Results from prospective analyses showed that AAS use, but not legal PES use, was associated with higher odds of all five IPV victimization variables (any IPV victimization: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.04-2.84; two forms of physical abuse: 1: AOR 2.01, 95% CI 1.15-3.50; 2: AOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.06-4.21; incurring an injury from IPV victimization: AOR 4.90, 95% CI 1.71-14.01; and sexual IPV victimization AOR 2.44, 95% CI 1.05-5.65), as well as three IPV perpetration variables (any IPV perpetration: AOR 2.11, 95% CI 105-4.23; one form of physical abuse perpetration: AOR 2.58, 95% CI 1.06-6.27; and sexual IPV perpetration: AOR 3.80, 95% CI 1.44-10.02). These results emphasize the adverse social and interpersonal risks associated with PES use. Continued research, health care, and public health prevention and intervention efforts to reduce the use of PES and occurrence of IPV are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207