MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402067339 · doi:10.2196/57931

Clinical and Biochemical Outcomes in Transgender Individuals Undergoing Hormone Therapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4402067339 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Sattora, Karen Teelin, Christopher Prendergast, Abigail Smith, Aamer Imdad

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderProtocol (science)Hormone therapyMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyBioinformaticsAlternative medicineInternal medicineCancerPathologyBiologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of various clinical outcomes and parameters, such as lipid levels, is recommended in transgender individuals undergoing hormone therapies. However, comprehensive data to inform these recommendations is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence from existing literature on the effect of exogenous hormone therapy on clinical and biochemical outcomes for transgender adolescents and adults. METHODS: We will search multiple electronic databases and will include prospective and retrospective observational studies with and without a control group. The study population will include transgender individuals undergoing hormone therapy with testosterone or estrogen. Comparisons will include age-matched, cisgender individuals and changes from baseline. Primary outcomes include changes in or the development of abnormal lipid parameters. Secondary outcomes include BMI, weight, height, and blood pressure for age, serum testosterone or estrogen levels, and development of disease including hypertension, diabetes, fatty liver disease, obesity, adverse cardiac events, as well as all-cause mortality. The meta-analysis will pool the studies where applicable, and meta-regressions will be conducted to evaluate effect modifiers. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach will be used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We will summarize the selection of the eligible studies using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart. The results will be presented in a table summarizing the evidence. Data collection is ongoing, and the paper is expected to be published in Spring 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize and evaluate the evidence of the clinical and biochemical outcomes associated with hormone therapies for transgender individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024483138; https://tinyurl.com/yc4sfvnb. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/57931.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.019
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.007

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 head0.713
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→