A Gender-Affirming Approach to Contraceptive Care for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) reproductive health care is a field with an abundance of misinformation and a paucity of quality literature available for both health care professionals and their patients. Clinicians often receive limited education and training in this area, and TGD individuals face many barriers to reproductive health care, including the lack of gender-affirming, inclusive, and knowledgeable clinicians as well as concerns about gender biases. As such, TGD individuals often feel uncomfortable discussing their reproductive health with their health care professionals and are deterred from seeking the appropriate care they need. Contraceptive counseling is a key component of reproductive health care but is often neglected in discussions between TGD patients and their health care professionals. Clinicians must strive to meet the contraceptive health care needs and desires of TGD patients in a gender-affirming manner within a safe and accepting space. Here, we summarize the current reproductive health care landscape and provide contemporary perspectives on how to improve contraceptive care for TGD individuals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".