Bridging Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening in Transgender Men: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and susceptibility to HPV-related cancer in transgender men (TM) are comparable to prevalence rates found in cisgender women. Regular and thorough screening for cervical cancer is equally as crucial for TM as for cisgender women; however, despite continued risk for cervical cancer in TM and associated recommendations for screening, studies indicate disparities in rates of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in TM compared to cisgender women. The current scoping review explores TM’s knowledge and experiences of CCS and barriers to screening uptake in this population. A range of barriers were identified including the need for health-care services to provide care for TM within the context of a nonbinary approach to gender identity and health. Findings synthesized from relevant research studies ( n = 15; published 2008–2019) are presented, and recommendations are drawn from these findings to inform primary health-care providers’ clinical practice and care of TM.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".