MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399772897 · doi:10.3390/humans4020011

Skeletal Manifestations of Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions for Aiding in the Preliminary Identification of Trans Individuals

2024· article· en· W4399772897 on OpenAlexaff
John Albanese, Jaime A. S. Nemett

Bibliographic record

VenueHumans · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRace, Genetics, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Psychological interventionPsychologyMedicineBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of systemic discrimination, transgender individuals are at greater risk of being the victims of violence and of homicide. Accurate post-mortem identification from skeletonized remains of transgender individuals must be incorporated into a new standard for forensic anthropological analyses. A critical component of any investigation is the assessment of skeletal remains for evidence of gender-affirming care. A systematic review of the current medical literature was conducted to compile in one document descriptions of changes that could be used by forensic anthropologists to recognize skeletal manifestations resulting from gender-affirming surgeries, including facial feminization surgery (FFS), shoulder width reduction surgery, and limb-lengthening procedures. These skeletal changes, when present bilaterally and without evidence of healed trauma, serve as key indicators of a person’s transgender identity postmortem. Recognizing common patterns in bone structure alterations due to gender-affirming interventions will assist in identifying transgender individuals and providing closure for families. By integrating markers from gender-affirming care practices into forensic investigations, this research contributes to more inclusive and rigorous forensic investigations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumansSame topicRace, Genetics, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207