MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402423758 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000011734

Mastectomy for Individuals with Gender Dysphoria Younger Than 26 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4402423758 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Miroshnychenko, Yetiani Roldán, Sara Ibrahim, Chan Kulatunga-Moruzi, Kristen Dahlin, Steven Montante, Rachel Couban, Gordon Guyatt, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisGender dysphoriaMastectomySystematic reviewMedicineClinical psychologyPsychologyMEDLINEOncologyGender identityBreast cancerInternal medicineSocial psychologyCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gender dysphoria (GD) refers to psychological distress associated with the incongruence between one's sex and one's gender. In response to GD, birth-registered female patients may choose to undergo mastectomy. In this systematic review, the authors summarize and assess the certainty of the evidence about the effects of mastectomy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, LGBTQ+ Source, and Sociological Abstracts through June 20, 2023. We included studies comparing mastectomy to no mastectomy in birth-registered patients younger than 26 years with GD. Outcomes of interest included psychological and psychiatric outcomes, and physical complications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We performed meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 39 studies. Observational studies ( n = 2) comparing mastectomy to chest binding provided very low-certainty evidence for the outcome of GD. One observational study comparing mastectomy to no mastectomy provided very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of global functioning and suicide attempts, and low-certainty evidence for the outcome nonsuicidal self-injury (adjusted OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.97). Before-and-after ( n = 2) studies provided very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes. Evidence from case series ( n = 34) studies ranged from high to very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Case series studies demonstrated high-certainty evidence for the outcomes of death, necrosis, and excessive scarring; however, these are limited in methodologic quality. In comparative and before-and-after studies, the evidence ranged from low to very low certainty.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207