Psychosocial Impact of Adolescent Gynecomastia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the physical and psychosocial impact of gynecomastia and its severity on adolescents seeking treatment as compared with healthy adolescent males. METHODS: The following surveys were administered to adolescents with gynecomastia and healthy male controls, aged 12 to 21 years: Short Form-36 Version 2, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Eating Attitudes Test-26. Demographic variables were compared between the two groups, and controls were administered a short chest symptoms survey. Linear regression models, unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index category, were fit to determine the effect of case status and graded severity of gynecomastia on survey score. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with gynecomastia and 92 male control subjects participated in this study. There was no difference in mean age between the groups, although patients with gynecomastia had a significantly higher body mass index. Gynecomastia subjects had three lower Short Form-36 domain and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores independent of body mass index category as compared with controls, although there was no difference in Eating Attitudes Test-26 scores between the groups. Graded gynecomastia severity had no effect on survey scores, all independent of body mass index category. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecomastia has a significant negative impact on primarily the psychosocial well-being of affected adolescent patients, specifically in regard to social functioning, mental health, and self-esteem. Psychosocial impact was not affected by graded severity of disease. Health care providers and patients should be aware of the psychosocial impairments associated with gynecomastia and consider early treatment for adolescents suffering from this condition, regardless of severity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".