MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412379337 · doi:10.1080/10640266.2025.2520975

Stories of clinical care in transgender and nonbinary individuals with eating pathology: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4412379337 on OpenAlexaff
Bianca Di Giannantonio, Gabriele Lo Buglio, Marta Mirabella, Tommaso Boldrini, Anna Franco, Michele Angelo Rugo, Vittorio Lingiardi, Laura Muzi

Bibliographic record

VenueEating Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderTransgender PersonEating disordersPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals are at an increased risk for developing eating disorders (EDs) and ED-related symptoms. Despite this heightened vulnerability, research on clinical interventions is limited. This scoping review aims to map the extent and type of existing evidence related to clinical care and interventions for TGNB individuals with eating pathologies, while also focusing on the process and course of treatment at the individual level. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed/Web of Science/(EBSCO)PsycINFO was searched for studies on TGNB individuals with EDs/ED-related symptoms published until 27/06/2023. We included primary research studies with detailed information on treatment and clinical course (protocol: https://osf.io/crhga). RESULTS: Twenty-one articles encompassing 32 case reports were included. The results were organized into five timeframes: studies published before 2004 (k = 2); between 2004 and 2008 (k = 1); 2009-2013 (k = 0); 2014-2018 (k = 10); and 2019-2023 (k = 8). Interventions ranged from psychotherapy, gender-affirming hormones and surgery, nutritional counseling, to pharmacological treatments. Reported outcomes varied, with some studies showing improvements in body dissatisfaction and ED symptoms' reduction, while others highlighted clinical challenges such as frequent relapses and co-existing mental health conditions. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the heterogeneity of stories of clinical care in TGNB individuals with eating pathologies, warranting individualized treatment approaches. Early studies often pathologized gender identity and used non-affirming language, whereas more recent studies emphasize inclusive, gender-affirming approaches. This evolution reflects a growing recognition of the unique challenges faced by TGNB individuals who seek help for EDs. Future research should overcome barriers to accessing care.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designSystematic review
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207