MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386704076 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad109

Gynecological concerns and vaginal practices and exposures among transfeminine individuals who have undergone vaginoplasty

2023· article· en· W4386704076 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jason Hallarn, Greta R. Bauer, Emery Potter, Hannah Wilcox, Jacy Newfeld, Yonah Krakowsky, Jacques Ravel, Jessica L. Prodger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineVaginoplastyVaginaDemographicsCross-sectional studyYoung adultGynecologyObstetricsDemographySurgeryGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vaginoplasty is a gender-affirming surgery that is medically necessary for some transfeminine individuals. Little research exists describing vaginal health after the initial recovery from surgery, and evidence-based guidelines for vaginal care practices are unavailable. AIM: The study sought to describe self-reported gynecological concerns and vaginal care practices among transfeminine persons who have undergone vaginoplasty. METHODS: A total of 60 transfeminine participants 18+ years of age, living in Canada, and who had undergone vaginoplasty at least 1 year prior were recruited through social media, community groups, healthcare provider referrals, and study recontact. Participants completed a cross-sectional, online questionnaire detailing demographics, gynecological concerns, and genital practices and exposures. Hierarchical clustering was used to group participants based on behavioral practices and exposures. Associations between clusters and gynecological concerns were assessed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included self-reported gynecological concerns within the past year, recent vulvar or vaginal symptoms (past 30 days), and behavioral practices/exposures, including douching with varied products and dilating. RESULTS: Participants reported a variety of concerns in the past year, including urinary tract infection (13%) and internal hair regrowth (23%). More than half (57%) had experienced at least 1 recent vaginal symptom, most commonly malodor (27%) and vaginal bleeding (21%). Of participants, 48% were dilating weekly and 52% reported douching in the past 30 days. Four distinct clusters of vaginal practices/exposures were identified: limited exposures; dilating, no douching; dilating and douching; and diverse exposures. No significant associations between cluster membership and gynecological concerns were identified, though cluster membership was significantly associated with surgical center (P = .03). Open-text write-ins provided descriptions of symptoms and symptom management strategies. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results provide insight for clinicians on common patient-reported gynecological concerns and current vaginal care practices and exposures, including symptom management strategies. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This was the first study to investigate vaginal health and genital practices/exposures among a community sample of transfeminine individuals. As participants self-enrolled for a detailed survey and swab collection, individuals experiencing concerns were likely overrepresented. CONCLUSION: Transfeminine individuals reported a range of gynecological concerns outside of the surgical healing period. Genital practices/exposures varied across clusters, but no clear associations between clusters and symptoms were identified; instead, practice/exposure clusters were dependent on where the individual underwent vaginoplasty. There is a need for evidence to inform diagnostics, treatments, and vaginal care guidelines to support vaginal health.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207