MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034962828 · doi:10.1089/trgh.2020.0006

Consensus Parameter: Research Methodologies to Evaluate Neurodevelopmental Effects of Pubertal Suppression in Transgender Youth

2020· article· en· W3034962828 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Chen, John F. Strang, Victoria D. Kolbuck, Stephen M. Rosenthal, Kim Wallen, Deborah P. Waber, Laurence Steinberg, Cheryl L. Sisk, Judith L. Ross, Tomáš Paus, Sven C. Mueller, Margaret M. McCarthy, Paul E. Micevych, Carol Lynn Martin, Baudewijntje P.C. Kreukels, Lauren Kenworthy, Megan M. Herting, Agneta Herlitz, Ira R.J. Hebold Haraldsen, Ronald E. Dahl, Eveline A. Crone, Gordon J. Chelune, Sarah Burke, Sheri A. Berenbaum, Adriene M. Beltz, Julie Bakker, Lise Eliot, Éric Vilain, Gregory L. Wallace, Eric E. Nelson, Robert Garofalo

Bibliographic record

VenueTransgender Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsNeurocognitiveTransgenderPsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMental healthDelphi methodCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Pubertal suppression is standard of care for early pubertal transgender youth to prevent the development of undesired and distressing secondary sex characteristics incongruent with gender identity. Preliminary evidence suggests pubertal suppression improves mental health functioning. Given the widespread changes in brain and cognition that occur during puberty, a critical question is whether this treatment impacts neurodevelopment. Methods: A Delphi consensus procedure engaged 24 international experts in neurodevelopment, gender development, puberty/adolescence, neuroendocrinology, and statistics/psychometrics to identify priority research methodologies to address the empirical question: is pubertal suppression treatment associated with real-world neurocognitive sequelae? Recommended study approaches reaching 80% consensus were included in the consensus parameter. Results: The Delphi procedure identified 160 initial expert recommendations, 44 of which ultimately achieved consensus. Consensus study design elements include the following: a minimum of three measurement time points, pubertal staging at baseline, statistical modeling of sex in analyses, use of analytic approaches that account for heterogeneity, and use of multiple comparison groups to minimize the limitations of any one group. Consensus study comparison groups include untreated transgender youth matched on pubertal stage, cisgender (i.e., gender congruent) youth matched on pubertal stage, and an independent sample from a large-scale youth development database. The consensus domains for assessment includes: mental health, executive function/cognitive control, and social awareness/functioning. Conclusion: An international interdisciplinary team of experts achieved consensus around primary methods and domains for assessing neurodevelopmental effects (i.e., benefits and/or difficulties) of pubertal suppression treatment in transgender youth.

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)0.409
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.512
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4090.512
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.365
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.107 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransgender HealthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207