MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414964688 · doi:10.3928/19382359-20250828-06

Understanding and Caring for Adolescents and Young Adults Who Are Considering or Pursuing a Detransition Process

2025· review· en· W4414964688 on OpenAlexaff
Kinnon R. MacKinnon, Pablo Expósito-Campos, June Sing Hong Lam, Victoria Anderson, Karine Khatchadourian

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Annals · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderRegretContext (archaeology)Young adultMental healthHealth careIdentity (music)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detransition refers to stopping, shifting, or reversing an initial gender transition. It often involves changes in self-identity and decisional regret with prior transition-related medical or surgical treatments. There are currently no formal care guidelines available to assist clinicians in discussing detransition with patients and their families or for supporting young people navigating the process. The aim of this article is to examine contemporary detransition research published between 2020 and 2025 to enhance evidence-informed care for adolescents and young adults who are transgender and gender diverse, as well as individuals who opt to detransition. Detransition often occurs in the context of health concerns or complications with treatments, transgender discrimination, complex mental health challenges and neurodivergence, and identity shifts. Recommendations for care and support for patients contemplating or engaging in a detransition process are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnnalsSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207