MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010443013 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.004

Birth Order and Sibling Sex Ratio in Androphilic Males and Gynephilic Females Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria from Iran

2020· article· en· W3010443013 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Sorouri Khorashad, Kenneth J. Zucker, Ali Talaeı, Farzaneh Rajabzadeh, Zahra Hamed, Pardis Akbarian, Ray Blanchard

Post-publication record

NatureReinstatement
ReasonDate of Article and/or Notice Unknown;Notice - Limited or No Information;Removed;Retract and Replace;Temporary Removal;
Date3/5/2020 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?No. Retraction Watch records this, and OpenAlex does not flag it.

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender dysphoriaTransgenderBirth orderDysphoriaPsychologySexual orientationSiblingOdds ratioGender identityClinical psychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPopulationSocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effect of older brothers on sexual orientation in male adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria and the effect of older sisters on sexual orientation in female adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria from Iran. AIM: To assess for the presence of a fraternal birth order effect in transgender androphilic males and a sororal birth order effect in transgender gynephilic females. METHODS: The subjects were 92 transgender males and 107 transgender females (all of whom met the DSM-5 criteria for gender dysphoria), together with 72 male and 78 female clinical controls. All the transgender males were androphilic, all the transgender females were gynephilic (preferentially attracted to members of their own biological sex), and all of the clinical controls were heterosexual (none were transgender or had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria). OUTCOMES: In relation to the probands, we analyzed the sibship composition of our groups with regard to birth order and sibling sex ratio (brothers to sisters). RESULTS: The results for the transgender males confirmed the findings of 2 recent meta-analyses that older brothers increase the odds of androphilia in later-born males. The results for the transgender females did not clearly confirm one previous finding that older sisters increase the odds of gynephilia in later-born females-a finding obtained in a relatively large study that included gynephilic cisgender girls as well as girls diagnosed with gender dysphoria who will probably be predominantly gynephilic. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The fraternal (later-born) birth order effect that we found for the transgender androphilic males, similar to that found in gay men, suggests a common underlying causal mechanism. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Our study on Iranian patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria provides further generalizability for the study of birth order and sibling sex ratio that has, more often than not, been restricted to Western samples of adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. It would be important to study these variables in Iranian gay men and lesbian women (without gender dysphoria) to further examine evidence for cross-cultural similarities when compared to Western samples. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the well-established fraternal birth order effect for males, the possible sororal birth order effect for females needs to be examined with additional samples. Khorashad BS, Zucker KJ, Talaei A. Birth Order and Sibling Sex Ratio in Androphilic Males and Gynephilic Females Diagnosed With Gender Dysphoria from Iran. J Sex Med 2020;17:1195-1202.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207