Human GH Use By Athletes With Short Stature Without GH Deficiency: Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organized sports are governed by specific rules that aim to create or preserve fair play. An unfair advantage can be obtained by the use of specific substances or methods, also referred to as doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency leads the international doping-free sport movement and annually publishes the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (List), which is used by most sport federations and organizations around the world. However, some athletes have legitimate medical conditions that require treatments that are included on the List. These athletes may apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), which, if approved, would allow them to take the required prohibited treatments. A challenging scenario concerns adolescents with short stature receiving treatment with human GH (hGH) who are not GH-deficient. Such treatment for short stature conditions is an approved indication for GH therapy in only a few countries, including the United States. Development of TUE Physician Guidelines for hGH for adolescent athletes with short stature required determining whether and to what extent such treatment constituted medical therapy or "enhancement." The group of experts contributing to the TUE Physician Guidelines concluded that hGH treatment for athletes with non-GH-deficient short stature could be considered therapeutic-and could be granted a TUE if they are below 2.25 SD on the growth curve-until the athlete reached a height at the 5th percentile of adult normal range on the appropriate growth chart pertaining to a specific country or region or another relevant chart. Beyond that point, a TUE for hGH treatment is not medically necessary and a TUE should no longer be considered.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".