Masculinising and feminising hormone interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Clinical guidelines outline the use of hormones for masculinisation/feminisation in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence. Robust evidence concerning risks and benefits is lacking. There is a need to aggregate evidence as research becomes available. Aim Identify and synthesise studies assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation/feminisation in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence. Methods Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were performed in April 2022, with results assessed independently by two reviewers. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort Studies was used to assess study quality. Moderate- and high-quality studies were synthesised. Results 12 cohort, 9 cross-sectional and 32 pre–post studies were included (n=53). One cohort study was high-quality. Other studies were moderate (n=33) and low-quality (n=19). Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects. There was limited evidence regarding gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, and fertility. Evidence from mainly pre–post studies with 12-month follow-up showed improvements in psychological outcomes. Inconsistent results were observed for height/growth, bone health and cardiometabolic effects. Most studies included adolescents who received puberty suppression, making it difficult to determine the effects of hormones alone. Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the use of hormones in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence. Moderate-quality evidence suggests mental health may be improved during treatment, but robust study is still required. For other outcomes, no conclusions can be drawn. More recent studies published since April 2022 until January 2024 also support the conclusions of this review. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42021289659.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".