MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406382268 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8994

Rethinking prostate cancer screening in transgender women

2025· review· en· W4406382268 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Asmaa Ismail, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Husain Alaradi, Krishna Jani, Hazem Elmansy, Ahmed S. Zakaria, Ahmed Kotb

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreNorthwestern Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstate cancer screeningTransgenderProstate-specific antigenProstateCancerGynecologyOncologyHormone therapyPopulationInternal medicinePsychologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, the number of people openly identifying as transgender has steadily increased, leading to a greater need for transgender-specific healthcare information. Among transgender women (TW), there remains a risk of prostate cancer since the prostate is not removed during gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or surgery; however, there is limited knowledge about prostate cancer screening in the transgender population. Although there are few reported cases of prostate cancer screening or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in TW, the impact of hormone therapies on PSA levels is well-documented. Notably, GAHT for TW and hormone therapy for treating prostate cancer share similarities. Drawing on these similarities, we aimed to develop guidelines for baseline PSA levels and prostate cancer screening in TW. METHODS: Through a systematic review, we examined the existing PubMed publications on PSA levels and prostate cancer screening in TW, as well as expected PSA levels in patients with prostate cancer undergoing hormone therapies. We also investigated other aspects considered for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Given the limited research on TW, we also included relevant case studies. These publications and case reports were reviewed and analyzed to create a comprehensive overview of expected baseline PSA levels and prostate cancer screening guidelines for TW. RESULTS: Currently, there are no established guidelines for PSA or prostate cancer screening in TW; however, these case studies indicated a range of PSA values from 3.3 to <100 ng/ml. Existing literature on expected PSA levels in prostate cancer patients undergoing hormone therapy shows a reduction in PSA of over 50% post-therapy. This evidence suggests that PSA values in TW presenting with prostate cancer may be lower than those observed in cisgender males with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: While TW exhibit lower prostate cancer incidence compared to cisgender men, the impact of hormone therapy on PSA levels presents significant challenges for screening and diagnosis. The parallels between PSA level reductions in TW and cisgender men undergoing estrogen therapy highlight the need for revised screening protocols. Addressing these challenges through targeted research and personalized care approaches will be vital for improving prostate cancer management in transgender individuals.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→