Can we rely on adolescents to self-assess puberty stage? A systematic review and meta-analysis
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
CONTEXT: Clinicians, researchers, and global health advocates often include pubertal development in outcomes. However, assessments of pubertal stage can be challenging because of the sensitive nature and feasibility of clinical examinations, especially in larger settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of self-assessed Tanner staging when compared with physically assessed Tanner stages by a clinician. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they reported 5 × 5 tables of self-assessment compared to clinician-assessment for the 5-stage Tanner scale. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data to generate complete 5 × 5 tables for each study, including any subgroup eligible for the analysis, such as overweight/obese youth. DATA SYNTHESIS: After screening, 22 studies representing 21,801 participants met our inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Overall agreement was moderate or substantial between the 2 assessments, with breast stage 1, female pubic hair 1, male pubic hair 1, and male pubic hair 5 having the highest agreement. When stages were collapsed into pre- (Tanner stage 1), in (stages 2,3), and completing (stages 4,5) puberty, levels of agreement improved, especially for pre- and completing pubertal development. Most included studies comprised Caucasian youth. More studies are needed which include a broader range of geographic and socioeconomic settings, as well as a greater diversity of racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment of puberty is most accurate when identifying Tanner stage 1, Tanner stage 5 and when development is categorized into prepuberty, in, and completing puberty phases. Use of self-assessment data should be structured accordingly. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO # CRD42018100205.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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