MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165050642 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.602293

Factors Associated With Ruminative Thinking in Individuals With Gender Dysphoria

2021· article· en· W3165050642 on OpenAlexaff
Dhiordan Cardoso da Silva, Leonardo Romeira Salati, Anna Paula Villas-Bôas, Karine Schwarz, Anna Martha Vaitses Fontanari, Bianca Machado Borba Soll, Ângelo Brandelli Costa, Vânia Naomi Hirakata, Maiko Abel Schneider, Maria Inês Rodrigues Lobato

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersHospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegreFundação Instituto de Pesquisas EconômicasCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyAnxietyPsychosocialRuminationSuicidal ideationDysphoriaDepression (economics)PsychiatryPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to examine psychosocial factors and medical history as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress associated with ruminative thinking in transgender people with gender dysphoria (GD) before undergoing gender affirmation surgery (GAS). This study evaluated 189 participants with GD (111 trans women and 78 trans men) from a specialized service for GAS in southern Brazil. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and participants were asked to complete self-report questionnaires. We recovered participants' sociodemographic and psychosocial data (e.g., history of sexual abuse, expulsion from home, and history of drug use) and data regarding their clinical history (e.g., medication, history of suicidal ideation and attempted suicide, and HIV status). Further, we implemented the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to examine participants' psychological state, as well as the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) to assess ruminative thinking, which includes brooding and reflection. The predictor variables were those that exhibited a minimum level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 in multivariate linear regression. The ruminative thinking scores for trans women were higher than those of trans men (Brooding p = 0.014; Reflection p = 0.052).In the multivariate model, suicidal ideation, moderate depression, and severe/very severe anxiety were associated with both brooding and reflection. Feminine gender identity and stress symptoms moderated only brooding, while anxiety symptoms moderated only reflection. Our findings show that trans women had the highest ruminative thinking scores, and that depression, anxiety, stress, and suicidal ideation were associated with ruminative thinking in total sample. Psychological symptoms should be examined in the context of gender affirmation surgery to minimize the possibility of adverse mental health outcomes. Follow-up studies are required to measure ruminative thinking levels more accurately and to identify its predictors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207