Fertility Preservation Discussions with Transgender People in Canada Prior to Beginning Medical Gender Affirmation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Prevalence of fertility preservation discussions and procedures, participant characteristics associated with discussions, and prevalence of desire to parent are described.\nMethods. Describes, for a clinical sample of < 16-year-olds: medical chart-recorded discussion and procedure prevalence, and desire to parent longitudinally. Describes self-reported discussion prevalence for a community sample of 14- to 39-year-olds. Bivariate and multivariable modified Poisson analyses were conducted for this sample.\nResults. Discussion prevalence was confirmed for approximately 80% of the clinical sample, with approximately 20% unconfirmed. Self-reported discussion prevalence was 45% in the community sample. Non-binary gender with female sex at birth, greater family religiosity, and diagnosed mental health condition excluding depression or anxiety were crudely associated with less discussions. Multivariable analyses revealed no statistically significant predictors. Desire to parent was fairly consistent over time.\nConclusion. Discussions should be standard practice for all fertile patients pursuing medical gender affirmation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".