Appearance and performance factors associated with muscle building supplement use and favourable attitudes towards anabolic steroids in adolescent boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The demand for appearance and performance enhancing substances, including muscle building supplements and anabolic androgenic steroids, is increasing in Australia. However, little is known about the associations between appearance and performance-based factors and appearance and performance enhancing substances (APES), particularly among adolescent boys. This study sought to examine (a) the prevalence of muscle building supplement use in a sample of adolescent boys and (b) how both performance and appearance factors relate to muscle building supplement use and favourable attitudes towards anabolic androgenic steroids in this sample. Method: = 14.59) from nine Australian schools completed measures of supplement use, favourable attitudes towards using steroids, muscle dissatisfaction, body fat dissatisfaction, mesomorphic ideal internalisation, weight training, and sports participation. Hierarchical logistic regressions were used to examine cross-sectional correlates of muscle building supplement use and favourable attitudes towards using anabolic androgenic steroids. Results: In the past three months, 12.7% of the sample had used muscle building supplements. Both appearance and performance-related factors - mesomorphic ideal internalisation and weight training - were related to muscle building supplement use. Only one appearance-related factor - body dissatisfaction - was related to favourable attitudes towards anabolic androgenic steroids. Discussion: The findings from this study are important as they may help to guide intervention strategies regarding appearance and performance enhancing substance use by Australian adolescent boys, with the ultimate goal of ensuring this population's safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".