MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403152528 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvae163.1657

12330 Progestogen Experience And Perception Among Transfeminine Adults - A National Survey

2024· article· en· W4403152528 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nguyen K. Tran, Annesa Flentje, Micah E. Lubensky, Juno Obedin‐Maliver, Mitchell R. Lunn, Danit Ariel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNHLBI Division of Intramural ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversidad de ChileUniversidade de São PauloCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasQueen Mary University of LondonFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São PauloUniversity of TorontoSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital
KeywordsPerceptionProgestogenPsychologyMedicineDemographyGerontologySociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: J.J. Chang: None. N. Khai Tran: None. A. Flentje: None. M.E. Lubensky: None. J. Obedin-Maliver: Consulting Fee; Self; Ibis Reproductive Health, Hims, Incorporated, Folx, Incorporated, Upstream, Incorporated. M.R. Lunn: Consulting Fee; Self; Hims, Incorporated, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc., American Dental Association. D. Ariel: None. Background: Current guidelines recommend estradiol with consideration of anti-androgens for gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) in transfeminine adults. Many individuals also seek progestogens as part of feminizing GAHT, particularly to enhance breast development. Though progestogen use seems common, few studies describe its use, reported benefits, and side effects. SpecificAims: 1) To describe progestogen use in feminizing GAHT among transfeminine individuals in the U.S. 2) To evaluate reasons for progestogen initiation and perceived physical and emotional impact; 3) To investigate side effects and adverse events. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants were recruited from The PRIDE Study, a U.S.-based longitudinal cohort study of LGBTQIA+-identifying adults. Included participants were assigned male sex at birth and had a feminine/transfeminine or non-binary gender identity. Those assigned female sex at birth (AFAB) or born with 1 or more ovaries were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe socio-demographic characteristics, progestogen use patterns, initiation reasons, perceived physical and mental impacts, side effects, adverse events, and care satisfaction. Results: 543 participants were eligible and completed the study. Mean age was 43.2 years (standard deviation: 14.9). Of 310 progestogen users, the most common progestogen forms were micronized progesterone (58.4% oral; 10.6% rectal) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (7.7% oral). Median progestogen use duration was 2 years (interquartile range: 1-4). Breast development (85.2%) and mimicking the hormone pattern of those AFAB (58.1%) were the two most reported reasons for progestogen initiation. Most progestogen users reported improved breast development (79.7%); none reported worsening. Sex drive, sleep, and concentration did not change with progestogen use in 46.5%, 51.3%, and 73.9% of participants, respectively. Adverse events included lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (n = 6) and pulmonary embolism (n = 4). The most common side effects were breast pain (28.7%), mood fluctuation (21.9%), fatigue (19.7%), and weight gain (19.0%). Most users expressed satisfaction with progestogens (71.9%) and would recommend to others (73.5%). Among 68 former progestogen users, 20.6% reported stopping progestogens due to negative side effects, and 32.4% stopped due to lack of perceived efficacy. Conclusions: In the largest study describing progestogens in GAHT to date, over half of transfeminine adults used progestogens, particularly for breast development. Most reported improvement with breast development and overall satisfaction. However, perceived impacts on other effects were variable. Future prospective studies are needed to investigate the effects of progestogens versus other components of feminizing GAHT. Presentation: 6/1/2024

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207