Nonhormone-Related Histologic Findings in Postsurgical Pathology Specimens From Transgender Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to characterize the literature addressing postprocedural complications in persons undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. METHODS: A literature search using the OVID MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed to identify all studies describing histologic findings in surgical pathology specimens from transgender persons from 1946 to April 2021. The studies describing postsurgical complications were categorized based on anatomic site, type of complication, study design, publication region, and date. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies describing postsurgical complications in transgender women were identified. The most common sites of postprocedural pathology included the breasts and neovagina, with additional studies including buttocks and thighs, cutaneous sites, and the pulmonary system. Most of the literature comprised case reports, followed by case series and comparative studies. The search did not identify any studies of complications secondary to masculinizing surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: This body of literature is small but growing. Most studies are case reports. There are significant gaps in the literature. The literature in this area is not yet mature enough to support a meta-analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".