MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412148816 · doi:10.3390/healthcare13141659

Psychological and Physical Health Outcomes Associated with Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: A Critical Review

2025· review· en· W4412148816 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Terri A. Croteau, Jan Gelech, Melanie A. Morrison, Todd G. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransgenderMental healthPsychologySexual minorityPopulationAnxietyLegislationClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceSexual orientationSocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Access of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth to gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) has become a contentious topic in the West, with many members of the general population, politicians, and even some experts and academic researchers voicing concerns about possible adverse effects of GAMC on the mental and physical health of TGD youth. Due to these concerns, recent years have seen a significant rise in legislation restricting TGD youth from accessing GAMC in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. However, in this critical review of the literature on the psychological (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicide, and body satisfaction) and physical (e.g., bone health, cognitive function, and fertility) health outcomes associated with GAMC among TGD youth, we argue that, given the state of current research, youth should not be restricted from accessing GAMC. Conclusions: Our findings reinforce the importance of close monitoring by doctors, counselling for TGD youth with respect to potential risks, and increased studies on the topic, especially those focusing on reproductive health.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207