Associations in intentions to use anabolic-androgenic steroids among non-consuming boys and men with probable eating disorders and muscle dysmorphia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are used to achieve a muscular and lean body to align with current ideals for boys and men. Identifying associations with intentions to use AAS, a precursor to actual use, is critical for prevention efforts. This study aimed to examine whether boys and men with a probable eating disorder or probable muscle dysmorphia have stronger intentions to use AAS, and whether these intentions differ between these conditions. METHODS: Data from a sample of 1,515 participants from the Study of Boys and Men who had never used AAS were analyzed. To address the study aims, one adjusted linear regression analysis was conducted along with post-hoc Wald tests. RESULTS: Probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and muscle dysmorphia were associated with greater intentions to use AAS compared to those with none of these conditions. Post-hoc Wald tests revealed that there were no significant differences in intentions to use AAS between those with probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and muscle dysmorphia; however, there were significant differences between these conditions and probable binge-eating disorder. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study add to a growing literature underscoring similar muscularity-oriented features across anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and muscle dysmorphia. Assessment of intentions to use AAS may be warranted among boys and men with eating disorders and muscle dysmorphia to ensure the provision of prevention and early-intervention strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".