Screen use in transgender and gender-questioning adolescents: Findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between transgender or gender-questioning identity and screen use (recreational screen time and problematic screen use) in a demographically diverse national sample of early adolescents in the U.S. METHODS: Study (ABCD Study®, N = 9859, 2019-2021, mostly 12-13-years-old). Multiple linear regression analyses estimated the associations between transgender or questioning gender identity and screen time, as well as problematic use of video games, social media, and mobile phones, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: In a sample of 9859 adolescents (48.8% female, 47.6% racial/ethnic minority, 1.0% transgender, 1.1% gender-questioning), transgender adolescents reported 4.51 (95% CI 1.17-7.85) more hours of total daily recreational screen time including more time on television/movies, video games, texting, social media, and the internet, compared to cisgender adolescents. Gender-questioning adolescents reported 3.41 (95% CI 1.16-5.67) more hours of total daily recreational screen time compared to cisgender adolescents. Transgender identification and questioning one's gender identity was associated with higher problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use, compared to cisgender identification. CONCLUSIONS: Transgender and gender-questioning adolescents spend a disproportionate amount of time engaging in screen-based activities and have more problematic use across social media, video game, and mobile phone platforms.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".