Puberty-Blocking Hormonal Therapy for Adolescents with Gender Identity Disorder: A Descriptive Clinical Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of puberty-delaying or blocking hormonal treatment of adolescents with gender identity disorder (GID) has become increasingly common. In the present study, we examined demographic, behavior problem, and psychosexual measures to see if any of them correlated with the clinical decision to recommend, or not recommend, puberty-blocking hormonal therapy in a consecutive series of 109 adolescents (55 females, 54 males) with GID evaluated between 2000 and 2009. Of the 109 adolescents, 66 (60.6%) were recommended for puberty-blocking hormonal therapy and 43 (39.4%) were not. A combination of five (of 15) demographic, behavior problem, and psychosexual measures were identified in a logistic regression analysis to significantly predict this clinical recommendation. The quantitative data were complemented by clinical case descriptions and some follow-up information. We discuss our data in relation to the Dutch model of early biomedical treatment for youth with GID and consider areas that require further clinical and empirical examination.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it