MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Controversies in Sexual Medicine: Is Physical Examination Required Before Prescribing Hormones to Patients with Gender Dysphoria?

2008· article· en· W1684071115 on OpenAlexaff
Yoram Vardi, Kevan Wylie, Charles Moser, Pierre Assalian, John Dean, Henk Asscheman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender dysphoriaPhysical examinationDysphoriaComplaintPsychologySex organMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryGender identitySocial psychologyAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A genital examination can have psychologic effects on a patient, particularly when the source of their sexual medicine complaint is a body part. How necessary is a physical exam before prescribing hormones in cases of gender dsyphoria? METHODS: Five people with expertise and/or interest in the area of gender dysphoria and endocrinology were asked to contribute their opinions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To provide food for thought, discussion, and possible further research in a poorly discussed area of sexual medicine. RESULTS: Of the five experts writing on the topic, one believes that a physical examination should always be performed before prescribing hormones for gender dysphoria, one believes it is not a prerequisite, and three believe a physical examination is recommended, but is not necessary in cases where the patient objects despite an explanation of the purpose of the exam. As long as this was documented, it would not present a medicolegal problem. CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether or not a physical examination must be performed on all gender dsyphoric patients before prescribing hormones; however, an examination would be helpful in revealing a significant health management issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207