Advances in diagnosis and care of persons with DSD over the last decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is clear that the major issues raised by the Chicago Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) Consensus meeting primarily the need of more data, especially outcome information, are still not available. Hence, there are insufficient data to merit another consensus statement. However, there has been a major shift in the thinking and approach to the care of patients with DSD. This was a consequence of the emphasis of the need to reconsider the criteria for sex assignment, to incorporate new genetic and hormonal knowledge in the care, and to investigate impact of surgical timing and techniques. Much of the reconsideration is in response to patient, family, social and legal demands, including the need for full disclosure and family or individual participation in decisions. Further, there remains a lack of sufficient information to provide predictors for future gender development. Hence, it still is impossible to develop specific clinical guidelines to apply to patients generally or individually. Thus, it is pertinent to periodically evaluate and assess some of these multifaceted changes. This report discusses cultural and social forces, legal factors, surgical perspectives, treatment shifts including psychological approaches, progress regarding genetic diagnosis, gender issue comparisons with transgender patients, and on-going research studies occurring since the consensus conference.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".