MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981537672 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmz026

Fertility preservation for transgender adolescents and young adults: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2981537672 on OpenAlexaff
Shira Baram, Samantha Myers, Samantha Yee, Clifford Librach

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityCReATe Fertility CentreCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderPsychosocialMEDLINESystematic reviewGender dysphoriaPopulationMedicineFertility preservationPsycINFOFamily medicineDistressFertilityPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many transgender individuals choose to undergo gender-affirming hormone treatment (GAHT) and/or sex reassignment surgery (SRS) to alleviate the distress that is associated with gender dysphoria. Although these treatment options often succeed in alleviating such symptoms, they can also negatively impact future reproductive potential. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available psychosocial and medical literature on fertility preservation (FP) for transgender adolescents and young adults (TAYAs), to identify gaps in the current research and provide suggestions for future research directions. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic review of English peer-reviewed papers published from 2001 onwards, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, was conducted. Four journal databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed Medline, Ovid Embase and Ovid PsychINFO) were used to identify all relevant studies exploring psychosocial or medical aspects of FP in TAYAs. The search strategy used a combination of subject headings and generic terms related to the study topic and population. Bibliographies of the selected articles were also hand searched and cross-checked to ensure comprehensive coverage. All selected papers were independently reviewed by the co-authors. Characteristics of the studies, objectives and key findings were extracted, and a systematic review was conducted. OUTCOMES: Included in the study were 19 psychosocial-based research papers and 21 medical-based research papers that explore fertility-related aspects specific for this population. Key psychosocial themes included the desire to have children for TAYAs; FP discussions, counselling and referrals provided by healthcare providers (HCPs); FP utilization; the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of TAYAs, HCPs and the parents/guardians of TAYAs; and barriers to accessing FP. Key medical themes included fertility-related effects of GAHT, FP options and outcomes. From a synthesis of the literature, we conclude that there are many barriers preventing TAYAs from pursuing FP, including a lack of awareness of FP options, high costs, invasiveness of the available procedures and the potential psychological impact of the FP process. The available medical data on the reproductive effects of GAHT are diverse, and while detrimental effects are anticipated, the extent to which these effects are reversible is unknown. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: FP counselling should begin as early as possible as a standard of care before GAHT to allow time for informed decisions. The current lack of high-quality medical data specific to FP counselling practice for this population means there is a reliance on expert opinion and extrapolation from studies in the cisgender population. Future research should include large-scale cohort studies (preferably multi-centered), longitudinal studies of TAYAs across the FP process, qualitative studies of the parents/guardians of TAYAs and studies evaluating the effectiveness of different strategies to improve the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of HCPs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations130
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207