‘Sustaining masculinity’: a scoping review of anabolic androgenic steroid use by older males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, research, policy and media have reported the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) primarily among younger males. However, recent studies have indicated the presence of an older cohort of men who use AAS in comparison to previous years. We carried out a scoping review of the extant literature to map and describe what is known about the use of AAS by older men (>40 years). A systematic search collected and analysed empirical research and grey literature relevant to the research question. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 44 studies were included which were subsequently charted and thematically analysed. The records included originated from the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Slovenia, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Switzerland, Japan, and five global studies and were published between 1996 and 2021. Age ranged overall from 14 to 78 years old, however our review only discussed findings pertaining to those older than 40. Three main themes with subthemes were generated as follows: 1) Characteristics of AAS Use; Self-reported Adverse Effects from AAS Use; and Harms Diagnosed by Medical Professional. The review highlights the significant risks to hypothalamic-pituitary testicular function, cardiovascular health, and other organ systems as a result of the ageing man who is motivated to sustain masculine characteristics such as muscularity, youthfulness, sexual function, and perceived desirability and attractiveness. Future research is required to further understand the motivations of older men who use AAS. Furthermore, there is a need for age-specific research and recommendations to inform future policy and practice pertaining so that age-appropriate healthcare and policy decisions can be made in the future.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".