Surveys on androgen abuse: a review of recent research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent survey research on androgen abuse [i.e., anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS)], including prevalence among international samples, risk factors for use, associated impairments of use, and treatment and interventions for abusers. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent research has documented the prevalence of androgens abuse remains most common among boys and men compared to girls and women, which was stable across nations. However, fewer studies have focused on population-based samples and instead focused on convenience or high-risk samples (i.e., gym goers). Androgen abusers commonly report a history of violent victimization, including adverse childhood experiences. Research continues to document many adverse biological, psychological, and social effects related to androgen abuse, including more than 50% of abusers reporting at least one side effect. Mental health problems and polysubstance use continues to be highly prevalent among androgen abusers. Despite these adverse effects from use, there remains little survey research on treatment and interventions for androgen abusers, representing an important area of future investigation. SUMMARY: Androgen abuse remains relatively common, particularly among boys and men, with adverse health effects regularly occurring. Healthcare professionals and systems can adapt their treatment approaches to focus on reducing harms associated with androgen abuse.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".