Binary and Nonbinary Transgender Patient Experiences Accessing Gender-affirming Top Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals face barriers when seeking top surgery, or bilateral mastectomies, as part of surgical transition, leading to delayed care and adverse health outcomes. Understanding differential experiences between nonbinary and binary patients is crucial for improving TGD patient care, but this distinction is seldom made in the current literature. Methods: tests. Summative content analysis and descriptive analysis were performed for free-text responses. Results: Thirty-seven binary and 71 nonbinary patients completed the survey. Lack of funding, long wait times within the healthcare system, and long wait times to access surgery were the three most impactful barriers for both cohorts. Nonbinary patients were more impacted by a lack of TGD-friendly surgeons and community physicians, prejudice from surgical center staff and community doctors, and employment concerns. More binary patients desired a "masculine chest" and to stop using a binder. The nonbinary group more frequently desired a "smaller chest" and had greater variability of surgical goals. Conclusions: Binary and nonbinary TGD patients both experience barriers to top surgery; however nonbinary patients may experience distinct barriers and have differential surgical goals. It is important to discuss specific surgery goals and offer top surgery options beyond bilateral mastectomy with nipple grafting, especially with nonbinary patients.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it