Patterns of Dietary Supplement Use among GBT2Q Men and Non-Binary Individuals in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of research regarding dietary supplement (DS) use among Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Two-Spirit, Queer (GBT2Q) men and non-binary individuals, despite the higher prevalence of body image issues and societal pressure within this community. This study aimed to investigate patterns and predictors of DS use in this population, including types of DS used, sources of information, and reasons for DS use. A validated and anonymous online questionnaire was completed by 204 participants (52.5% men, 43.1% gay, mean age 29.34 + 6.77 years) across Canada, who were consuming DS at the time of the study. Analyses included descriptive statistics to characterize the sample based on gender, sexuality, age, ethnicity, and other demographic attributes, using Pearson’s chi-square tests and multi-way cross-tabulation analyses. Additionally, regression analyses, including binary and logistic regressions, were employed to identify predictors of DS use. Data analysis concluded that vitamins/minerals (92.2%), proteins (84.3%) and carbohydrates (75.5%) were the most consumed types of supplements. Identifying as certain genders and sexualities was significantly associated with supplement preferences, such that men reported higher use of amino acids (p = 0.033) and non-vitamins/mineral antioxidants compared to individuals identifying as other genders (p = 0.006). Moreover, bisexual participants consumed amino acids (p = 0.043) and carbohydrates (p = 0.026) more frequently when compared to non-bisexual participants. The most listed reason for DS use was to improve immunity (60.3%), with health care professionals being listed as the source of information by most participants (51.0%). Findings from this study can serve as a foundation for further research in this area and can guide the formulation and implementation of adequate policies targeting this underserved population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".