MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838363598 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0021

Prevalence of and Risk and Protective Factors for Depression in Female-to-Male Transgender Ontarians: Trans PULSE Project

2011· article· en· W1838363598 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nooshin Khobzi Rotondi, Greta R. Bauer, Kyle Scanlon, Matthias Kaay, Robb Travers, Anna Travers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityRainbow Health OntarioCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTransphobiaTransgenderDepression (economics)RespondentGender dysphoriaMental healthClinical psychologyPsychologyTranssexualPsychiatryMedicineDemographyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although depression is understudied in transgender and transsexual communities, high prevalences have been reported. This paper presents original research from the Trans PULSE Project, an Ontario-wide, community-based initiative that surveyed 433 participants using respondent-driven sampling. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the prevalence of, and risk and protective factors for, depression among female-to-male (FTM) Ontarians (n = 207). We estimate that 66.4% of FTMs have symptomatology consistent with depression. In multivariable analyses, sexual satisfaction was a strong protective factor. Conversely, experiencing transphobia and being at the stage of planning but not having begun a medical transition (hormones and/or surgery) adversely affected mental health in FTMs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations101
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207