Transgender Youth Referred to Clinics for Gender-Affirming Medical Care in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Referrals of transgender and gender-diverse (trans) youth to medical clinics for gender-affirming care have increased. We described characteristics of trans youth in Canada at first referral visit. METHODS Baseline clinical and survey data (2017–2019) were collected for Trans Youth CAN!, a 10-clinic prospective cohort of n = 174 pubertal and postpubertal youth <16 years with gender dysphoria, referred for hormonal suppression or hormone therapy, and 160 linked parent-participants. Measures assessed health, demographics, and visit outcome. RESULTS Of youth, 137 were transmasculine (assigned female) and 37 transfeminine (assigned male); 69.0% were aged 14 to 15, 18.8% Indigenous, 6.6% visible minorities, 25.7% from immigrant families, and 27.1% low income. Most (66.0%) were gender-aware before age 12. Only 58.1% of transfeminine youth lived in their gender full-time versus 90.1% of transmasculine (P < .001). Although transmasculine youth were more likely than transfeminine youth to report depressive symptoms (21.2% vs 10.8%; P = .03) and anxiety (66.1% vs 33.3%; P < .001), suicidality was similarly high overall (past-year ideation: 34.5%, attempts: 16.8%). All were in school; 62.0% reported strong parental gender support, with parents the most common support persons (91.9%). Two-thirds of families reported external gender-related stressors. Youth had met with a range of providers (68.5% with a family physician). At clinic visit, 62.4% were prescribed hormonal suppression or hormone therapy, most commonly depot leuprolide acetate. CONCLUSIONS Trans youth in Canada attending clinics for hormonal suppression or gender-affirming hormones were generally healthy but with depression, anxiety, and support needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".