Comparison of Estrone/Estradiol Ratio and Levels in Transfeminine Individuals on Different Routes of Estradiol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Estradiol for gender-affirming hormone therapy can be taken in different routes: oral, sublingual, transdermal patch or gel, and injectable estradiol. We aimed at comparing the estrone and estradiol ratios and levels achieved in each of these different routes of estradiol. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of transfeminine individuals attending an endocrinology clinic in Toronto, Canada. Study participants were grouped according to the route of estradiol administration: oral, injectable, transdermal, and sublingual. Our primary outcome was the estrone/estradiol ratio (E1/E2). Our secondary outcomes were the estradiol and estrone levels in each of these four groups. Results: We included 286 patients. The oral estradiol group had the highest E1/E2 ratio (9.28), followed by the sublingual group (6.88). Both the transdermal and injectable groups had substantially lower E1/E2 ratios (2.22 and 0.84, respectively). We observed a large variability of the E1/E2 ratio in the oral and sublingual groups, whereas the transdermal and the injectable groups' ratios had much smaller standard deviation. The mean estradiol in the injectable group (1557 pmol/L, 424.1 pg/mL) was markedly higher than the estradiol levels observed in all other routes of estradiol. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate significantly different E1/E2 ratios in the four different routes of estradiol administration, with oral and sublingual routes having the highest E1/E2 ratios followed by transdermal and injectable routes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it